EURADOS Report 2012-03

Transcription

European Radiation Dosimetry Group e. V.
Braunschweig, May 2012
Comparison of Codes Assessing
Radiation Exposure of Aircraft Crew
due to Galactic Cosmic Radiation
J.F. Bottollier-Depois, P. Beck, M. Latocha,
V. Mares, D. Matthiä, W. Rühm, F. Wissmann
ISSN 2226-8057
ISBN 978-3-943701-02-9
European Radiation Dosimetry Group e. V.
Braunschweig, May 2012
Comparison of Codes Assessing Radiation
Exposure of Aircraft Crew due to Galactic
Cosmic Radiation
J.F. Bottollier-Depois1, P. Beck2, M. Latocha2,
V. Mares3, D. Matthiä4, W. Rühm3, F. Wissmann5
1
IRSN Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety,
92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses, France
2
AIT Austrian Institute of Technology,
Donau-City-Straße 1, 1220 Vienna, Austria
3
HMGU Helmholtz Zentrum München, Institute of Radiation Protection,
85764 Neuherberg, Germany
4
DLR Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt, Institute of Aerospace
Medicine, Linder Höhe, 51147 Köln, Germany
5
PTB Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt,
Bundesallee 100, 38116 Braunschweig, Germany
ISSN 2226-8057
ISBN 978-3-943701-02-9
Imprint
© EURADOS 2012
Issued by:
European Radiation Dosimetry e. V.
Bundesallee 100
38116 Braunschweig
Germany
office@eurados.org
www.eurados.org
The European Radiation Dosimetry e.V. is a non-profit organization promoting research and
development and European cooperation in the field of the dosimetry of ionizing radiation. It is
registered in the Register of Associations (Amtsgericht Braunschweig, registry number VR 200387)
and certified to be of non-profit character (Finanzamt Braunschweig-Altewiekring, notification
from 2008-03-03).
Liability Disclaimer
No liability will be undertaken for completeness, editorial or technical mistakes, omissions as well
as for correctness of the contents.
Members of the editorial group
This comparison exercise was organised and the report was prepared by the following members of
EURADOS Working Group 11 on “High Energy Radiation Fields”:
Beck, Peter AIT Austrian Institute of Technology
Health & Environment Department
Bottollier-Depois, Jean-François IRSN Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety
F-92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses, France
Latocha, Marcin AIT Austrian Institute of Technology
Health & Environment Department
Mares, Vladimir HMGU Helmholtz Zentrum München
Institute of Radiation Protection
Matthiä, Daniel DLR Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt
Institute of Aerospace Medicine
Linder Höhe, 51147 Köln, Germany
Rühm, Werner HMGU Helmholtz Zentrum München
Institute of Radiation Protection
Wissmann, Frank PTB Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt,
i
List of contributors to the report
Bennett, Les PCAIRE data
Royal Military College
Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7K7B4
Bean, Marty PCAIRE data
PCaire Inc.
38 Colonnade Rd, Ottawa, Canada
Bütikofer, Rolf PLANETOCOSMICS
University of Bern
Bern, Switzerland
Clairand, Isabelle SIEVERT data
Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety
F-92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses, France
Copeland, Kyle CARI-6M data and Chapter 1.1.4
Federal Aviation Administration - Civil Aerospace Medical Institute
Oklahoma City, OK 73169, USA
Dyer, Clive QARM data
Aerospace Division, QinetiQ
Farnborough, United Kingdom
Felsberger, Ernst IASON-FREE data
IASON GmbH
Feldkirchner Straße 4, A-8054 Graz-Seiersberg, Austria
Hands, Alexander QARM data
Aerospace Division, QinetiQ
Farnborough, United Kingdom
Latocha, Marcin AVIDOS data
Austrian Institute of Technology, Health & Environment Department
Lewis, Brent Chapter 1.1.2
Royal Military College
Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7K7B4
Maczka, Tomasz EPCARD data
Helmholtz Zentrum München, Institute of Radiation Protection
Mares, Vladimir EPCARD data
Helmholtz Zentrum München, Institute of Radiation Protection
ii
Matthiä, Daniel PANDOCA data
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt - Institute of Aerospace
Medicine
Linder Höhe, 51147 Köln, Germany
McCall, Mike PCAIRE data
PCaire Inc.
38 Colonnade Rd, Ottawa, Canada
O’Brien, Keran IASON-FREE data
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
Rollet, Sofia AVIDOS data
Austrian Institute of Technology, Health & Environment Department
Wissmann, Frank FDOScalc data
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt,
Yasuda, Hiroshi JISCARD EX data and Chapter 1.1.3
National Institute of Radiological Sciences
Chiba, Japan
List of airlines and organisations providing flight data
Air France, IFALPA, QINETIQ
Acknowledgements
Preparation of this report was supported by the European Commission Directorate-General for
Energy (DG ENER), Luxembourg. The authors would like to thank the Commission for hosting two
editorial meetings and S. Mundigl, DG ENER, for his contribution.
This report is also published in the Radiation Protection Series of the European Commission as
RP 173. See http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/publications_en.htm
iii
iv
Content
Members of the editorial group ............................................................................................ i
List of contributors to the report .......................................................................................... ii
List of airlines and organisations providing flight data ........................................................ iii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... iii
Content................................................................................................................................. v
Abstract...............................................................................................................................vii
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Radiation Exposure of Aircrew ................................................................................. 1
1.1.1 European Union........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Canada ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.3 Japan................................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.1.4 United States ................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Quantities used for aircrew dosimetry ...................................................................... 2
1.3 Parameters influencing the secondary field of cosmic radiation ............................... 3
1.4 Objective of the report ............................................................................................. 5
2 Selection of Flight Routes and Justification............................................................... 6
2.1 Definition of the data set .......................................................................................... 6
2.2 Presentation and discussion of plausibility of input data........................................... 8
2.3 Overview of the different codes...............................................................................11
2.3.1 AVIDOS......................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.2 CARI ............................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.3 EPCARD.Net................................................................................................................................................ 14
2.3.4 FDOScalc ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.3.5 IASON-FREE ................................................................................................................................................ 16
2.3.6 JISCARD EX ................................................................................................................................................. 17
2.3.7 PANDOCA ................................................................................................................................................... 18
2.3.8 PCAIRE .......................................................................................................................................................... 18
2.3.9 PLANTEOCOSMICS Model (Bern model) .......................................................................................... 19
2.3.10
QARM ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
2.3.11
SIEVERT.................................................................................................................................................... 20
3 Dose Data Comparison ...............................................................................................22
3.1 Route doses in terms of ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), and effective dose, E....22
3.2 Dose rate vs. cut-off rigidity and altitude .................................................................25
3.3 Dose rate profile over flight time .............................................................................30
4 Discussion ...................................................................................................................34
5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................38
6 References ...................................................................................................................39
Appendix 1: ICAO Airport Codes ......................................................................................46
Appendix 2: Flight Profiles ................................................................................................47
v
vi
Abstract
The aim of this report is to compare the doses and dose rates calculated by various codes assessing
radiation exposure of aircraft crew due to cosmic radiation. Some of the codes are used routinely
for radiation protection purposes while others are purely for scientific use. The calculations were
done using a set of representative, real flight routes around the globe.
The results are presented in an anonymous way. This comparison is of major importance since a
real determination of effective dose is not possible and, therefore, the different methods used to
evaluate effective doses can be compared.
Eleven codes have been used in this comparison exercise organised by EURADOS on
harmonization of aircrew dosimetry practices in European countries. Some of these codes are
based on simulations of the secondary field of cosmic radiation by Monte Carlo techniques; others
use analytical solutions of the problem, while still others are mainly based on a fit to experimental
data. The overall agreement between the codes, however, is better than 20 % from the median.
vii
viii
Comparison of Codes Assessing Radiation Exposure of Aircraft Crew due to Galactic Cosmic Radiation
1
1.1
Introduction
Radiation Exposure of Aircrew
Since the primary and secondary fields of cosmic radiation in the atmosphere are very complex in
terms of particle composition and particle energies, dose assessment for aircrew is a very difficult
task. Many research projects have focused on this problem during the past decade. One of the
main outcomes is that dose assessment can be performed using program codes which were
developed during the past few years. Use of a code is possible since the radiation field is relatively
constant and sudden changes in local dose rates are not expected, except for the rarely occurring
case of ground level enhancements (GLE). Therefore, the dates, geographic information on
latitudes and longitudes, and barometric altitudes of the routes flown are the basic input
parameters for calculations of radiation exposure of aircraft crew due to galactic cosmic radiation.
1.1.1 European Union
Since 1996, aircraft crew in the European Union have been recognized as occupationally exposed
workers owing to their exposure to primary and secondary cosmic radiation in the atmosphere at
typical flight altitudes i. e. between 8 km and 12 km. By 2006, the EURATOM/96/29 directive had
been implemented in all EU member states and proper measures had to be taken to assess the
dose.
Since about 1990 there has been an extensive series of measurements of the cosmic radiation field
at flight altitudes. Within Europe, these have included four multinational, multi-institutional
coordinated measurement, research and development programmes funded by the European
Commission (Beck, 1999; EC, 1997; O’Sullivan, 1999; O’Sullivan, 2004), and three workshops on
cosmic radiation and aircrew exposure (Kelly, 1999; Reitz, 1993; Bottollier-Depois, 2009). The results
obtained by these and other investigations, mainly European, have been partially summarized, and
detailed descriptions of the measurement methods have been published by the European
Commission (EC, 1996; EC, 2004) in two European Radiation Dosimetry Group (Eurados) reports.
There was also an investigation within the Fifth European Research Framework Programme and
the CAATER project (Coordinated Access to Aircraft for Transnational Environmental Research)
comparing measurements and calculations of ambient dose equivalent rates on board an aircraft
circulating in limited areas (Lillhök, 2007).
1.1.2 Canada
With the adoption of the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection in publication No. 60 (ICRP, 1990) by the nuclear regulator in Canada (Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission), Health Canada was asked to provide guidance to Transport Canada (TC) which
is specifically responsible for the regulation of occupational exposure of aircrew in Canada.
A Commercial and Business Aviation Advisory Circular (CBAAC) was subsequently issued by TC to
advise Canadian-based air carriers to initiate a means of assessing flying aircrew in advance of
forthcoming regulations. Extensive research, supported by the Director General Nuclear Safety
(DGNS), the Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC), Transport Canada (TC) and the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), has been undertaken by the Royal
1
J.F. Bottollier-Depois, P. Beck, M. Latocha, V. Mares, D. Matthiä, W. Rühm, F. Wissmann
Military College of Canada (RMC) to determine the radiation exposure of both Canadian Forces and
commercial aircrew (Lewis, 2001; Lewis, 2002; Lewis, 2004).
1.1.3 Japan
In Japan, the National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) has carried out intensive research to
develop cosmic radiation detectors and educational tools to provide aviation route dose values
and related information. The Radiation Council has established a guideline for the management of
cosmic radiation exposure of aircraft crew and, in May 2006, the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and two other related ministries jointly urged domestic
airlines to follow the guideline. It was suggested that cosmic radiation exposure of aircraft crew
should be managed by voluntary efforts of airlines to keep the annual doses lower than 5 mSv.
Proper measures against large solar flares are also required. It was also recommended that cosmic
radiation doses of aircraft crew be evaluated by model calculation, verified by measurements.
1.1.4 United States
In the U.S., to promote radiation safety of aircrews, the Radiobiology Research Team at the Federal
Aviation Administration’s Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) provides educational materials
on radiation exposure, recommends limits for occupational exposure to ionizing radiation,
develops computer programs available via the Internet to calculate flight doses, operates a Solar
Radiation Alert system, and publishes original research and review articles in peer-reviewed
journals.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) formally recognizes that aircraft crews are
occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation. It recommends that crew members be informed
about their radiation exposure and associated health risks and that they be assisted in making
informed decisions with regard to their work environment.
The FAA, with the cooperation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
operates a Solar Radiation Alert system that warns of increasing radiation levels that may cause air
travellers to be exposed to excessive amounts of ionizing radiation. The system continuously
evaluates measurements of high-energy protons made by instruments on GOES satellites. Solar
Radiation Alerts are transmitted to the aviation community via the NOAA Weather Wire Service.
1.2
Quantities used for aircrew dosimetry
For routine radiation protection purposes, i.e. dose assessment of aircraft crew, a code must be
able to calculate the effective dose E, the radiation protection quantity defined as the tissueweighted sum of the equivalent doses in all specified tissues and organs of the body, given by the
expression:
E   wT H T   wT  wR DT, R
T
T
R
where HT is the equivalent dose in a tissue or organ T given by
w
R
DT, R ; DT,R is the mean
R
absorbed dose from radiation type R in a tissue or organ T, and wR and wT are the radiation and
2
tissue weighting factors, respectively, defined by the ICRP. The SI unit for the effective dose is joule
per kilogram (J kg-1) and its special name is sievert (Sv).
According to ICRP 103 (ICRP, 2007) use of the effective dose is recommended for “the prospective
dose assessment for planning and optimisation in radiological protection, and demonstration of
compliance with dose limits for regulatory purposes” . It is also recommended that the effective
dose should not be used “for epidemiological evaluations, nor should it be used for detailed
specific retrospective investigations of individual exposure and risk“.
In operational radiation protection the dose equivalent H is defined by the product of the absorbed
dose D at a point of interest in tissue and the radiation quality factor Q at this point:
H  QD
where Q describes the biological effectiveness of radiation, taking into account the different
ionisation densities. In this report, aircrew dosimetry deals with the dosimetry of external radiation
as personal dosimetry is not an option for routine dose monitoring. Area monitoring at flight
altitudes uses the ambient dose equivalent H*(10) as the operational quantity, defined by ICRP 103
as: “The dose equivalent at a point in a radiation field that would be produced by the
corresponding expanded and aligned field in the ICRU sphere at a depth of 10 mm on the radius
vector opposing the direction of the aligned field. The unit of ambient dose equivalent is joule per
kilogram (J kg-1) and its special name is sievert (Sv)”.
Codes calculating the doses received by aircrew members can only be validated by comparing the
measured ambient dose equivalent H*(10) (or its rate) to the calculated value. For validation
purposes, all codes must be able to calculate H*(10). This in turn means that the measured doses or
dose rate values should be given in terms of ambient dose equivalent. This requirement can best
be fulfilled if measurements are performed according to the ISO 20785 series. These standards
define the way instruments are characterized and calibrated, and how measurements on board
aircraft are to be performed. Codes providing effective doses only cannot be validated by
experimental data, but can nevertheless be compared to other validated codes.
The codes involved in this comparison provided ambient dose equivalents or effective doses or
both. It should be mentioned here that in the new ICRP 103 recommendations these radiation
weighting factors have somewhat changed compared to the early ICRP 60 recommendations,
making H*(10) values more similar to the effective dose values. However, since in most countries,
especially in Europe, the current legal basis for calculations of aircrew exposure is based on ICRP 60
recommendations, effective doses given here are based on these recommendations.
1.3
Parameters influencing the secondary field of cosmic radiation
Primary cosmic radiation at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere includes a continuous galactic
component and a sporadic solar component. Both components consist mainly of protons and to a
lesser extent helium ions, but electrons and heavier ions may also be present on a small scale. The
intensity of galactic cosmic rays near Earth is modulated by the variation of the interplanetary
magnetic field during the 11-year cycle of solar activity. The intensity of the sporadic solar cosmic
radiation at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere depends on the source location of the high-energy
3
processes in the Sun, where the solar cosmic radiation particles are accelerated, and the
configuration of the interplanetary magnetic field. Both components, i.e. the galactic and the solar
cosmic radiation, are shielded by the geomagnetic field. In contrast to the interplanetary magnetic
field, the geomagnetic field is rather constant, although it may occasionally be influenced by large
coronal mass ejections from the Sun. Shielding by the geomagnetic field is most effective at low
geomagnetic latitudes, and less effective close to the geomagnetic poles. For this reason, the dose
rate from cosmic radiation at any point of interest in the atmosphere depends on geomagnetic
coordinates.
The magnetic rigidity, r, of a charged particle traversing a magnetic field is:
r
pc
q
where p is the particle’s momentum, q its charge, and c the speed of light. Particles with the same
magnetic rigidity, same charge sign, and same initial conditions have identical trajectories in a
constant magnetic field. The SI unit of magnetic rigidity is kg m s-2 A-1 = T m = V m-1 s. A frequently
used unit is volt, V (or GV), in a system of units in which the magnetic rigidity is cp/q.
The parameter most commonly used to quantify the shielding effect of the Earth’s magnetosphere
at a given location is the effective vertical geomagnetic cut-off rigidity, rc, (or shorter: vertical cutoff rigidity). The effective vertical cut-off rigidity lies in the so-called penumbral region, defined as
the rigidity interval between the value below which no particle arrives in the vertical direction at
the location of interest and the highest rigidity value above which all particles arrive in the vertical
direction. In the penumbral region no clear separation can be made between rigidity intervals
allowing or denying the vertical arrival of particles. A detailed discussion of cosmic ray cut-off
terminology and a definition of the calculation procedure for the effective cut-off rigidity can be
found elsewhere (Cooke, 1991). In order to account for the shielding effect of the magnetosphere
at a given location, the effective vertical cut-off rigidity is converted to a cut-off energy for each
primary particle under consideration, and only particles above this energy threshold are taken into
account in the calculations.
Particles of cosmic radiation that hit the atmosphere produce a complex field of secondary
particles including, for example, protons, neutrons, electrons, positrons, photons, muons (positive
and negative), and pions (positive and negative). The energy range involved covers many orders of
magnitude and depends on particle type. For example, secondary photons range from roughly
10 keV up to 1 GeV, and neutrons from thermal energies up to 10 GeV, while muons range from
roughly 10 MeV up to 100 GeV. Due to the competing processes of secondary particle production
and absorption, the fluence of secondary cosmic radiation – and thus the dose rate – increases with
increasing altitude and reaches a maximum at an altitude of about 20 km. At typical flight altitudes,
most of the effective dose is caused by neutrons and protons. More details on the various
parameters that influence the doses due to cosmic radiation in aviation are given for example in
(EURADOS, 2004).
4
1.4
Objective of the report
The aim of this report is to compare the dose and dose rates calculated by the various codes for
which the providers have agreed to perform the calculations. Some of the codes are used routinely
for radiation protection purposes, while others are purely for scientific use. The calculations were
done using a set of representative real flight routes around the globe.
The results are presented in an anonymous way since recommendation of specific codes is not
intended. Nevertheless, this comparison is of major importance since a real determination of
effective dose is not possible and therefore the different methods used to evaluate effective doses
can be compared.
In particular, there is a specific emphasis on quantifying the spread in both the ambient dose
equivalent and the effective dose given by the various codes and models used in the present
exercise. Because many of the codes are currently used in various countries worldwide in the
assessment of aircrew doses from cosmic radiation, the present report may provide some idea of
whether the calculated doses agree with each other within an uncertainty range that can be
accepted for purposes of radiation protection.
5
2 Selection of Flight Routes and Justification
2.1
Definition of the data set
The comparison was organized using routes flown by typical passenger aircraft, obtained from
various airlines. The input format used the coordinates of the departure and arrival airports, and
several waypoints at which altitudes and/or course changed were defined in between. The code
providers were asked to calculate the total route dose as well as the local dose rates at the given
waypoints in terms of H*(10) and/or E. Results were to be given both for a date close to the solar
maximum (08/2000) and minimum (09/2007). The 23 flights selected cover most of the major
passenger flight routes in the world (see Fig. 2.1) as well as a wide range of latitudes (from North to
South) and a wide range of vertical cut-off rigidities (from 0 GV to 18 GV). They also included six
ultra-long range flights with flight durations of more than 13 hours (see Tab. 2.1).
Additionally, one specific flight (Singapore – Newark, No. 23 in Tab. 2.1) was selected, and dose
rates (dH*(10)/dt and dE/dt) calculated for the individual waypoints along the flight route were
used for comparison. This flight was chosen because it covers a wide range of vertical cut-off
rigidities from almost 0 GV to about 17 GV.
90
75
60
Latitude (degree)
45
30
15
0
-15
-30
-45
-60
-75
-90
-180
-150
-120
-90
-60
-30
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
Longitude (degree)
Figure 2.1. The selected flight routes of the 23 flights investigated. Grey dots denote
waypoints with given latitude, longitude, altitude and time of flight. The solid lines
do not represent flight routes but are meant only to guide the eve between the
waypoints. (The background map was modified but was originally taken from
NASA’s “Visible Earth” catalogue http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=2433;
terms of use: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/useterms.php)
6
Table 2.1. The 23 flights investigated with flight durations. The airport codes as defined by the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) are shown in Appendix 1; the flight route profiles
are in Appendix 2.
Flight number
Departure airport Destination airport
(ICAO code)
(ICAO code)
Flight duration
(hh:mm)
1
WSSS
YSSY
06:38
2
YSSY
VTBD
08:49
3
YSSY
VHHH
08:42
4
LFPG
FAJS
09:58
5
NZAA
WSSS
09:47
6
FAJS
LFPG
10:07
7
LFPG
SBGL
10:48
8
WSSS
NZAA
09:12
9
LFPG
KJFK
07:19
10
KJFK
LFPG
06:14
11
LFPG
KIAD
07:43
12
LFPG
RJAA
10:40
13
RJAA
LFPG
12:49
14
FAJS
YSSY
11:29
15
KSFO
LFPG
09:15
16
KORD
ZSPD
14:25
17
KORD
VHHH
15:24
18
KORD
ZBAA
13:11
19
LFPG
KSFO
11:38
20
YSSY
FAJS
13:45
21
OMDB
KIAH
15:36
22
YSSY
FAJS
13:51
23
WSSS
KEWR
17:21
7
2.2
Presentation and discussion of plausibility of input data
The flight data files for 23 selected flight routes (see Fig. 2.1) were distributed among the
participants in the specific format shown in Appendix 2 of this report, for a date close to the solar
maximum and solar minimum, respectively. Each flight data file consists of a so-called info-line
containing essential information about the flight such as flight number, departure and destination
airports in the four-letter alphanumeric code defined by the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), and date and time of scheduled take-off and touch-down using the Universal
Time Coordinated (UTC) specification. All values are separated by semicolons. As an example, the
first line for flight number 00009 from Paris to New York (Table 2.2) is shown, with an explanation
of the format:
00009;LFPG;KJFK;18/08/2000;01:00;18/08/2000;08:19;
Table 2.2. Explanations of fields used in the info-line for flight number 00009 from Paris to New
York.
Field
Explanation
00009
Flight number
LFPG
ICAO code of the departure airport
KJFK
ICAO code of the destination airport
18/08/2000
01:00
18/08/2000
08:19
Take-off date (UTC) (dd/mm/yyyy)
Take-off time (UTC) (hh:mm)
Touch-down date (UTC) (dd/mm/yyyy)
Touch-down time (UTC) (hh:mm)
The following lines in the flight file - so-called waypoint lines - start with the flight number,
followed by air navigation data, separated by semicolons. There are three types of waypoint lines.
The first and the last line in the block of waypoint lines are labelled as AER (aerodrome) to indicate
the departure or arrival airport. The second and the last-but-one waypoints are taken as top of
climb (TOC) and top of descent (TOD), respectively. Between the TOC and TOD waypoint lines there
are several common waypoint lines (INT) depending on the flight route. Each waypoint flag (AER,
TOC, TOD, and INT) is followed by the flight level or elevation, elapsed time, and geographic
position (see Appendix 2). The flight level (FL) and elevation of airports are defined as barometric
altitude in feet divided by 100. Elapsed time is given in hh:mm format and always begins with 00:00
in the departure airport line. The geographic coordinates are defined by North (N) and South (S)
latitude (lat) in degrees, minutes, and seconds in DDMMSS format, and West (W) and East (E)
longitude (long) in DDDMMSS format, respectively. As an example, the line with the common
waypoint (INT) is shown below, with an explanation in Table 2.3.
00009;INT;360;00:24;485018N;0001500W;
8
The codes used in this comparison handle input data in different formats. Therefore, it was
necessary for each participant to prepare his own input file fitting the specific data format of his
code. The participants were themselves responsible for data transfer.
Before the flight data were distributed to the participants, all air navigation data were checked for
typographical errors and corrected if required. The geographic positions of all destination airports
and waypoints were reviewed. The ground level elevation of all airports was set to “000”. Next,
a simple plausibility check involving flight speed and duration was made.
Table 2.3. Explanations of fields used in the waypoint lines for flight number 00009 from Paris to
New York.
Field
Explanation
00009
Flight number
INT
Waypoint flag
360
Altitude (FL)
00:24
485018N
0001500W
Elapsed time (hh:mm)
Geographical latitude (DDMMSS)
Geographical longitude (DDDMMSS)
Two departure dates during Solar Cycle 23 were predefined for all flights under the study. The first,
18th of August 2000, is close to the solar maximum, while the second, 12th of September 2007, is
close to the solar minimum. Both dates were chosen during the quiet period of solar activity as can
be seen in Figures 2.2 and 2.3, where hourly averaged counts measured by Neutron Monitors (NM)
located at different geographic positions and elevations are shown. The figures also demonstrate
the increased count rates during the solar minimum.
9
10000
August 2000
9000
Count rate (cnt/min)
8000
Oulu NM
Moscow NM
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
31.07.00
05.08.00
10.08.00
15.08.00
20.08.00
25.08.00
30.08.00
Date
Figure 2.2. Hourly averaged count rates measured by the Moscow neutron monitor
in Russia (top line) and the Oulu Cosmic Ray station in Finland (middle line) during
August 2000. Data are corrected for air pressure.
10000
9000
September 2007
Count rate (cnt/min)
8000
7000
6000
OULU NM
Moscow NM
5000
4000
3000
31.08.07
05.09.07
10.09.07
15.09.07
20.09.07
25.09.07
30.09.07
Date
Figure 2.3. Hourly averaged count rates measured by the Moscow neutron monitor
in Russia (top line) and by the Oulu Cosmic Ray station in Finland (bottom line)
during September 2007. Data are corrected for air pressure.
10
2.3
Overview of the different codes
The different codes used are summarized in Table 2.4 and described in more detail in sections 2.3.1
to 2.3.11. Some of the codes are based on Monte Carlo simulations of the radiation field (AVIDOS,
EPCARD, JISCARD EX, PANDOCA, PLANETOCOSMICS (Bern code), and QARM). The SIEVERT code
uses a worldwide grid of dose rates calculated with EPCARD. Two codes (CARI, FREE) use an analytic
calculation of particle transport through the atmosphere based on LUIN99/LUIN2000 and
PLOTINUS calculations, respectively. Other codes are based on measurements only (FDOScalc,
PCAIRE) and some use the E/H*(10) conversion as calculated by the Monte Carlo codes mentioned
above.
Versions of the EPCARD, FREE and PCAIRE codes are approved for dose assessment by the civil
aviation authority in Germany. For this comparison, however, the scientific version of PCAIRE,
which is not approved in Germany, was used. Dose assessment with the AVIDOS 1.0 code is
accredited according to European regulations and FREE 1.3.0 is accredited in Austria. The SIEVERT
code was initiated by the French aviation authority to provide a common tool for airlines.
11
Table 2.4. Computer codes for calculation of the radiation exposure of aircraft crew due to galactic cosmic radiation. For de tailed description and
references see sections 2.3.1 to 2.3.11.
Computer Code
Method based on
Reference
Primary galactic cosmic radiation spectra
Cut off rigidity
Dose conversion
(if applied)
AVIDOS 1.0
FLUKA Monte Carlo code
calculations
(Beck, 2007;
Roesler, 2002)
Gaisser et al modified by balloon measurements
(Gaisser, 2001; Beck, 2007)
Vertical cut off rigidity (Smart, 1997)
ICRP 60 (ICRP, 1990)
(Pelliccioni, 2000)
LUIN99/LUIN2000 code
calculations
(Friedberg, 1992)
below 10 GeV (Garcia-Munoz, 1975),
above10 GeV (Peters, 1958)
normalized to 10.6 GeV (Gaisser, 1998)
Vertical cut-off rigidity (Shea, 2000)
non-vertical cut-off rigidities
(Heinrich, 1979)
(Pelliccioni, 2000)
FLUKA Monte Carlo code
calculations
(Mares, 2009; Roesler,2002)
(Badhwar, 2000)
Vertical cut-off rigidity (Bütikofer, 2007)
(Pelliccioni, 2000; Mares, 2007)
Experimental data (97-99; 03-06)
(Schrewe, 2000; Wissmann,
2006; Wissmann, 2010)
Not applied
Vertical cut-off rigidity
MAGNETOCOSMICS (Desorgher, 2006)
PLOTINUS code calculations
(Felsberger, 2009)
below 10 GeV (Garcia-Munoz, 1975),
above10 GeV (Peters, 1958)
normalized to 10.6 GeV (Gaisser, 1998)
Vertical cut-off rigidity (Shea, 2000)
non-vertical cut-off rigidities
(Heinrich, 1979)
(Pelliccioni, 2000)
PHITS Monte Carlo code
calculations
(Yasuda, 2008a;
Yasuda, 2008b)
(Nymmik, 1992)
Vertical cut-off rigidity pre-calculated with
MAGNETOCOSMICS (Desorgher, 2006)
(Pelliccioni, 2000)
PLANETOCOSMICS 2.0;
GEANT4.9.1 Monte Carlo code
calculations
(http://corsray.unibe.ch)
(http://geant4.web.cern.ch/
geant4/)
(Gleeson, 1968)
(Usoskin, 2005)
Vertical cut-off rigidity, pre-calculated with
PLANETOCOSMICS 2.0
(Pelliccioni, 2000)
PCAIRE
Experimental data (since 97)
(Lewis, 2001; Lewis, 2002;
Lewis, 2004; Takada, 2007)
Not applied
Vertical cut-off rigidity (Lewis, 2002)
PLANETOCOSMICS 2.0
GEANT4 Monte Carlo code
calculations
(http://corsray.unibe.ch)
(Gleeson, 1968; Garcia-Munoz, 1975)
Vertical cut-off rigidity (Bütikofer, 2007)
(Pelliccioni, 2000)
QARM 1.0
MCNPX Monte Carlo code
calculation
(Badhwar, 2000)
Vertical cut-off rigidity (Smart, 1997)
ICRP 74 (ICRP, 1996),
(Pelliccioni, 2000)
SIEVERT 1.0
EPCARD version3.3.4 code
calculations
(Badhwar, 2000)
Vertical cut-off rigidity (Smart, 1997)
(Pelliccioni, 2000)
CARI-6M
EPCARD.Net 5.4.1
FDOScalc 2.0
IASON-FREE 1.3.0
JISCARD EX
PANDOCA
(Lei, 2004; Lei, 2006; Dyer,
2007; http://mcnpx.lanl.gov)
(http://sievert-system.org;
Bottollier-Depois, 2007)
12
2.3.1
AVIDOS
AVIDOS is based on numerical calculations and an empirical model. Numerical calculations were
performed using the FLUKA (Ferrari, 2005) Monte Carlo code. A spatial density profile of the Earth’s
atmosphere and an updated primary proton energy spectrum (Gaisser, 2001) were taken into
account in modelling the Earth environment and galactic cosmic radiation. Resulting fluence rates
were converted into ambient dose equivalent rates and into effective dose rates using Pelliccioni’s
conversion coefficients (Pelliccioni, 2000) according to the ICRP 60 publication. A multi-parameter
model (Beck, 2007) was applied to the results of the FLUKA calculations, allowing the
determination of ambient dose equivalent rates and effective dose rates over the full range of
vertical cut-off rigidity (Smart, 1997), solar deceleration potential (Badhwar, 1997) and
commercially used altitudes. The solution was implemented in a computational code called
AVIDOS. Route doses are calculated by integrating dose rates calculated at each waypoint.
A waypoint should give information on current flight time, geographical location and altitude. If
the travel time between two following waypoints is larger than 5 minutes, sub-waypoints are
created assuming constant altitude and route along a great circle. AVIDOS needs regularly updated
neutron monitor records to reflect changes in solar activity. Aircraft crew dose assessment using
AVIDOS is accredited by the Austrian office for accreditation. This accreditation is accepted and
valid throughout the European Union.
An internet version of AVIDOS (AVIDOS-WEB1.0) is provided to the public with a simplified route
(over a great circle) between departure and arrival positions. The effective dose between any two
locations is estimated using a default flight altitude and estimated flight time. Additionally, a user
can customize the flight profile by choosing altitudes between 8 km and 15 km and flight times
between 1 hour and 15 hours 45 minutes. AVIDOS-WEB may not be used for radiation dosimetry
services. AVIDOS is further described by Latocha, et al. (Latocha, 2009). AVIDOS-WEB is accessible at
the internet address http://avidos.ait.ac.at.
2.3.2
CARI
The CARI program was initially developed in the late 1980’s at the FAA’s Civil Aerospace Medical
Institute, and calculates the effective dose of galactic cosmic radiation received by an individual
(based on an anthropomorphic phantom) in an aircraft flying at altitudes up to 87,000 feet
(~ 26.5 km); in some versions the limit is 60,000 feet (~ 18.3 km). Since CARI-2, CARI has been based
on the LUIN radiation transport program (Friedberg, 1992; Friedberg, 1993; O’Brien, 1992; O’Brien,
1994; O’Brien, 1996). The current version of the program is CARI-6, based on the LUIN99/LUIN2000
transport code of O’Brien (O’Brien, 2003).
There are 5 publicly available variants of CARI-6: CARI-6, CARI-6M, CARI-6P, CARI-6PM, and a set of
web pages (US FAA, 2011). All versions report doses and dose rates in effective dose, using ICRP 60
radiation weighting factors (ICRP, 1990). In the present exercise CARI-6M was used.
In addition to the ICRP effective dose, the output of the “P” and “PM” variants also includes the
effective dose (and dose rate for single locations) calculated using NCRP Report 116 (NCRP, 1993)
radiation weighting factors and an estimate of the whole-body absorbed dose. For all three doses,
the contributions from the principal contributing particle groups (muons, electromagnetic
showers, charged pions, protons, and neutrons) are reported.
13
For flight dose calculations, “6”, “6P”, and the web pages assume a geodesic flight path (deviations
from a geodesic route of 200 miles (~ 322 km), have only a small effect on the flight dose) between
origin and destination airports and instantaneous altitude changes between cruising altitudes.
Linear rates of altitude change are used for the initial climb and final descent. The “6M” and “6PM”
variants assume the flight follows a geodesic path between user-entered waypoints, with all
altitude changes performed smoothly. The next version, CARI-7, is expected to be ready for release
in 2012.
2.3.3 EPCARD.Net
EPCARD.Net (the European Program Package for the Calculation of Aviation Route Doses) (Mares,
2009) is a completely new object-oriented code which can be run without recompilation on many
state-of-the-art operating systems such as Microsoft® Windows NT/2K/XP/Vista (using both .Net® or
Mono® runtime platform) or “UNIX kernel type” operating systems like Linux, Mac OS X or Solaris
(using the Mono® runtime platform). The so called “XML-EPCARD application” for input and output
guarantees error-free data exchange in heterogenic systems where the EPCARD.Net application is
in use. It can be implemented in a broad spectrum of usage scenarios such as a WEB service or
Operating System scripts component, or as a single standalone application with intuitive Graphic
User Interface.
The physical basis for the EPCARD.Net version 5.4.1 developed by Helmholtz Zentrum München is
version 3.34 of EPCARD (Schraube, 2002) which was approved by the civil aviation authority in
Germany and also validated by measurements (Lindborg, 2004) in which an agreement between
measured and calculated doses better than 20 % was achieved.
The EPCARD.Net solution is based on the results of extensive Monte Carlo calculations (Roesler,
2002) performed with FLUKA (Ferrari, 2005), taking into account all physical processes that govern
the interaction of cosmic radiation with the Earth’s atmosphere. Using a NASA model (Badhwar,
1997) of primary cosmic radiation impinging upon the top of the atmosphere, the secondary
particle spectra of neutrons, protons, photons, electrons and positrons, muons, and pions were
calculated at various depths down to sea level for all possible physical circumstances of solar
activity and geomagnetic shielding conditions.
A set of fluence-to-dose conversion coefficients for the respective particle types from the FLUKA
calculations (Pelliccioni, 2000) is employed to calculate the ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), and
effective dose, E, separately for each particle, i.e. the dose contributions from neutrons, protons,
photons, electrons, muons, and pions. The EPCARD.Net parameter database includes energyaveraged dose conversion coefficients, calculated by folding each single-particle fluence spectrum
with the appropriate dose conversion function (Mares, 2004; Mares, 2007), which depend on
barometric altitude, cut-off rigidity, and solar activity, since the shapes of the particle energy
spectra also depend on these parameters.
To determine the dose rates at specific locations in the atmosphere during a flight, the cut-off
rigidity is calculated to include the structure of the geomagnetic field and its shielding capability in
the dose calculation. Additionally, the solar deceleration potential (Badhwar, 1997; Badhwar, 2000)
is derived from the flight date and neutron monitor data, to include solar activity in the dose
calculation. Finally, the flight levels of a given flight profile are used to determine the respective
14
depths in the atmosphere and quantify atmospheric shielding. EPCARD.Net calculates the doses for
flights in the range of barometric altitudes from 5000 m to 25000 m, which is equivalent to
atmospheric depths from 544 g cm2 to 22.8 g cm2. Between the given waypoints of a flight route,
great circle navigation is assumed. The time period for possible calculation is determined by the
validity range of the neutron monitor data used, i.e. from January 1964 to the present.
To take into account the most recent geomagnetic shielding data, EPCARD.Net uses effective
vertical cut-off rigidity data for the current epoch, calculated by the MAGNETOCOSMICS code
(Bütikofer, 2007) developed at the University of Bern by the Cosmic Ray Group (Desorgher, 2006).
Cut-off rigidity parameters for a complete world grid with a resolution of 5° in latitude and 5° in
longitude (5° X 5°) are stored in the parameter database. More general information about the
EPCARD.Net solution is available on the web site http://www.helmholtz-muenchen.de/epcard,
where a simplified on-line version of the EPCARD calculator for public use can also be found.
2.3.4
FDOScalc
FDOScalc is based on a mathematical model which provides a fit to the complete dataset of
ambient dose equivalent rates measured by PTB. The dataset includes 892 data points measured
between 1997 and 1999 with an ionization counter and a modified rem counter (Schrewe, 2000),
and 1537 data points measured with a tissue-equivalent proportional counter (TEPC) system
between 2003 and 2006 (Wissmann, 2006). The model includes all relevant influencing parameters,
such as altitude, vertical cut-off rigidity, and neutron monitor rate. The goal was to have a simpleto-use, functional description of the dose rate distribution for different flight altitudes,
geographical locations, and levels of solar activity. Since the problem was approached with
Bayesian statistical methods, tools were available to investigate and compare various competing
mathematical models that could be used to describe the data; it was also possible to evaluate an
uncertainty for each dose rate value calculated with the final model function.
In references (Schrewe, 2000; Wissmann, 2006), it was shown that relatively simple relations can be
used to describe the measured dose rate as a function of the altitude, geomagnetic latitude, and
fluence rate of secondary neutrons at ground level. Since the neutron monitor rate is a direct
measure of the fluence rate of primary cosmic ray particles entering into the atmosphere, it can be
used to evaluate the change in the dose rate at flight altitudes due to changes in solar activity. The
neutron monitor at Oulu, Finland, was selected for monitoring the secondary neutron fluence rate
at ground level.
The geomagnetic latitude is not the best parameter to describe the influence of the Earth's
magnetic field. A better parameter is the vertical cut-off rigidity, rc, which describes the minimum
rigidity required for a charged particle to enter the magnetic field and to reach a certain altitude. It
was shown in references (Schrewe, 2000; Wissmann, 2006) that the measured data, when
normalized to a common altitude of FL350, smoothly follow a simple function of vertical cut-off
rigidity rc,
d
H FDOScalc  H 0  H 1 e( rc / c )
 and H are assumed to be constant and c, d are fitting parameters. In FDOScalc, a
where H
0
1
more general expression in which the coefficients are described by a Taylor expansion was used.
15
A detailed analysis using tools of Bayesian data analysis showed that not all expansion coefficients
are necessary to describe the data. This approach prevents over- or under-parameterization of the
mathematical model. The final equations used in FDOScalc are (Wissmann, 2010):
H 0  a00  a01 (h  h 0 )
0
0
H 1  a00  b10 ( N NM  N NM
)  c10 ( N NM  N NM
)2 
0
0
[a11  b11 ( N NM  N NM
)  c11 ( N NM  N NM
) 2 ](h  h 0 )
where h is the altitude, NNM is the count rate of the neutron monitor in Oulu, and axx, bxx, and cxx are
fitting parameters. The exponent ”0“ indicates the reference values. The validity of this function is
restricted to the data range of the fitted data. Therefore, only calculations for Oulu neutron monitor
count rates NNM between 5700 counts/min and 6500 counts/min and flight levels between FL230
and FL415 are allowed.
2.3.5
IASON-FREE
IASON-FREE (EC, 2004; Felsberger, 2009; Felsberger, 2011) is based on the work of O’Brien
(http://physics.nau.edu). His theoretical framework is a numerical-analytical solution of the
Boltzmann transport equation and is well documented in the scientific literature. In addition to
many others, it includes base codes for the calculation of the galactic cosmic radiation (GCR)
components and their associated dosimetry (O’Brien, 2005) and the dosimetric contributions of
those Solar Particle Events (SPE) called ground level enhancements (GLE) (O’Brien, 2000; O’Brien,
2005). It also includes the theoretical basis for an operational Forbush decrease (FD) procedure
(O’Brien, 2007). All base codes have been extensively tested, compared and verified with
measurements.
As base codes are rather slow and difficult to handle in professional commercial environments,
a flight code intended solely for operational use was developed. This central calculation program
was created primarily to mirror O’Brien’s base codes as accurately as possible. Therefore, to avoid
a possible ‘flight code effect’, no approximations or data reduction techniques were used, and the
problem was solved with a ‘brute force attack’. The enormous number of 1 338 650 single points on
a properly triangulated four dimensional grid in space and modulation parameter was precalculated. These base results were interpolated in space with sophisticated three-dimensional
B-Spline methods. The modulation parameter was determined by a piecewise linear interpolation
procedure. The whole procedure leads to an ultrafast access mechanism for every possible set of
input parameters. A flight dose result is determined by integrating the dose rates over the flight
trajectory in space and time. The flight trajectory is not limited in the number of points; standard
flight trajectories with a temporal sample size of one minute are generated from input data.
Neither implicit assumptions nor tacit modifications of the flight trajectory are made – great circle
navigation between the waypoints is assumed.
Compared to other available solutions, this flight code is different in the degree of detail covered
(O’Brien, 2008); no energy-averaged particle fluence-to-dose conversion coefficients independent
of any input parameter are used. It takes into account the non-vertical cut-offs and the concave
dependence of dose rates on solar activity. Solar activity is treated with the completely local
heliocentric potential model and considered on an hourly basis. Short-term variations (FDs and
16
GLEs) are correctly included. Additionally, an overall H*(10) output possibility was built in – crucial
for comparison with measurements and for all verification purposes.
The flight code was created on modern component-based software architecture. It is fully scalable,
supporting the possibilities of modern computer hardware. It calculates all results very rapidly and
is not limited in the possible input file size (number of flights). The flight code was approved by the
civil aviation authority in Germany in 2004 and IASON acts as the accredited aircrew dose
assessment service according to the laboratory standard ISO IEC 17025, which covers and includes
approval of both conformity and competence. Despite the fact that newer developments exist
internally (O’Brien, 2010), the flight code has remained stable since then and version FREE 1.3.0 has
never been changed.
2.3.6
JISCARD EX
In Japan, the government has requested domestic airline companies to follow the guidelines set by
the Radiation Council in 2006 (MEXT, 2006), which state that annual aviation doses of aircraft crew
are to be kept below 5 mSv per year. The National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) has
helped the airline companies follow this guideline, particularly in calculation of aviation route
doses. For this purpose, an easy-to-use program for calculation of aviation doses, “JISCARD EX”, has
been developed at the National Institute of Radiological Sciences (Yasuda, 2008a; Yasuda, 2008b).
JISCARD EX is now also open to the general public from the NIRS web page as an educational tool
“JISCARD” (NIRS, 2006).
JISCARD EX is written with the Excel VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) language and runs on the
Microsoft Excel 2003/2007 platform. The dose rates along a flight route are calculated with a PHITSbased “PARMA” analytical model (Sato, 2008) developed from comprehensive simulations using
the “PHITS” Monte Carlo code (Iwase, 2002) coupled with the JENDL High-Energy File nuclear data
library (Watanabe, 2005). PARMA can calculate cosmic radiation dose rates in the atmosphere up to
an altitude of 20 km as precisely as the Monte Carlo code in a very short time.
The incident particle spectra of galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) around the Earth are taken from
local interstellar (LIS) spectra (Nymmik, 1992) and the effects of solar modulation are also evaluated
with the Nymmik model, coupled with modified empirical parameters based on the force-field
formalism. The effects of geomagnetic shielding, i.e., effective vertical cut-off rigidities, are
calculated using the GEANT4-based “MAGNETOCOSMICS” particle tracing code (Desorgher, 2006)
developed at the University of Bern by the Cosmic Ray Group. The newest version of the
MAGNETOCOSMICS code, which was available in 2010, has been employed.
In the version of JISCARD EX used here, the conversion coefficients for the calculation of effective
dose and ambient dose equivalent were originally determined for each of the seven essential
radiation components (neutrons, protons, photons, electrons, positrons, muons and helium ions)
and isotropic irradiation geometry using the PHITS code; the dependencies of neutron spectra on
aircraft structure were considered as local geometry effects. A large number of these coefficients
are identical to those previously published by (ICRP, 1996; Pelliccioni, 2000). The conversion
coefficient values are being updated for adaptation to the 2007 ICRP recommendations (ICRP,
2007) and the new reference computational phantoms.
17
2.3.7 PANDOCA
The PANDOCA (Professional AviatioN DOse CAlculator) code was developed at the German
Aerospace Center (DLR) at the Institute of Aerospace Medicine and is presently used for scientific
purposes only. The radiation exposure is calculated using the GEANT4 version 4.9.1 Monte Carlo
code (Agostinelli, 2003) in combination with the model of the atmosphere (Picone, 2002) and the
magnetic field of the Earth (Maus, 2005) provided by the PLANETOCOSMICS tool
(http://cosray.unibe.ch). Galactic cosmic hydrogen and helium are considered as primary particles
in the energy range from 100 MeV to 1.5 TeV (hydrogen) and 100 MeV to 850 GeV (helium). The
primary particle energy spectra as described by Usoskin et al. (2005) are used, taking into account
the solar modulation in the force-field approximation and using the modulation parameter φ
(http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi). The GEANT4 interface to the JAM/JQMD model by Koi et al. (Koi, 2003) is
used to calculate the helium transport at energies larger than 10 GeV/n. The resulting energy
spectra of secondary protons, neutrons, photons, electrons, positrons, muons and pions at a given
altitude are converted to effective dose and ambient dose equivalent using fluence-to-dose
conversion factors (http://inf.infn.it).
The geomagnetic shielding effect was taken into account using the effective vertical cut-off rigidity
calculated with PLANETOCOSMICS on a two-times-three degree grid in geographic latitude and
longitude. The calculations of effective cut-off rigidity are based on the IGRF model of the
geomagnetic field for 2005. In order to account for geomagnetic shielding, the geographic location
is then converted to cut-off rigidity and the corresponding cut-off energy by interpolating between
the calculated values on the coordinate grid. For a given flight profile, the model provides the
effective dose rate dE/dt and the ambient dose equivalent dH*(10)/dt at each waypoint and the
resulting flight-integrated values of E and H*(10).
2.3.8
PCAIRE
The Predictive Code for AIrcrew Radiation Exposure, known as PCAIRE, is a semi-empirical model to
calculate radiation exposure for commercial aircrew and frequent flyers (available online at
www.pcaire.com), with one of the world’s largest repositories of measured global flights spanning
a range of geomagnetic latitudes from -40° to 85° (Lewis, 2001). These flight data have been
collected on commercial and military aircrafts by PCAIRE in cooperation with the Royal Military
College of Canada, since 1997, with 15-30 instrumented flights flown each year (Lewis, 2002; Lewis,
2004).
A tissue-equivalent proportional counter (TEPC) is used to collect ambient dose equivalent data at
one-minute intervals. All data are correlated with the specific altitude and global position and then
averaged over five-minute intervals using a standard smoothing technique. An altitude correction
function has been developed to account for the effect of altitude. In addition, a theoretical analysis
scales the data to account for the smaller effect of varying solar modulation (for a given date). The
heliocentric potential and altitude correction functions are then used to normalize all of the data.
The final result is a single correlation of all dose rate data versus vertical cut-off rigidity. This
relationship allows the dose rate for any global position, altitude and date to be interpolated.
PCAIRE provides a total ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), estimate by integrating this dose rate
function over a given flight path, accounting for altitude and heliocentric potential effects.
18
PCAIRE requires user input for the flight duration time, altitudes and time flown at these altitudes,
departure and destination locations and the date of the flight. The code provides a rapid routedose output in total ambient dose equivalent and/or effective dose (using either a FLUKA or LUIN
conversion function). PCAIRE maintains complete crew profiles and can associate individuals with
flights flown, allowing exposure to be reported on a per-crew basis; likewise, PCAIRE can report
a per-flight exposure which can be exported in a format acceptable to HR systems. PCAIRE can be
run on corporate servers, via the internet, on an iPhone or on a laptop.
2.3.9
PLANTEOCOSMICS Model (Bern model)
The PLANETOCOSMICS software suite (Desorgher, 2005) is based on the Geant4 software,
a platform for simulating passage of particles through matter using Monte Carlo methods
(http://geant4.cern.ch/). The PLANETOCOSMICS application allows the propagation of charged
particles in the planetary magnetic field, and/or the hadronic and electromagnetic interactions of
cosmic radiation with the environment of Earth, Mars, or Mercury, including the planet's
atmosphere and soil, to be computed. Possible outputs of the program are the fluence rate of
particles at user-defined altitudes or the energy deposited by atmospheric shower particles in the
atmosphere. Applications of the PLANETOCOSMICS code include albedo fluence rate estimates,
solar particle fluence rate studies, computation of the ionization rate in the atmosphere by cosmic
radiation, and study of energetic electron precipitation events at high latitudes.
With the PLANETOCOSMICS code, radiation dose rates in the Earth's atmosphere due to cosmic
radiation are computed in individual steps. First, the vertical cut-off rigidities, i.e. the minimum
rigidity needed so that a cosmic radiation particle can reach the top of the atmosphere in the
vertical direction, are computed at the grid points of a 5° X 5° network in geographic coordinates.
Here, the Earth’s magnetic field is described by the IGRF model for the internal field and by the
Tsyganenko89 magnetic field model for the magnetic field caused by variable external sources
subject to the dynamic interactions of the solar wind with the geomagnetosphere. In the second
step the near-Earth galactic cosmic radiation spectrum outside the geomagnetosphere is described
by the heliocentric potential as based on the work of Gleeson and Axford (Gleeson, 1968), GarciaMunoz et al. (Garcia-Munoz, 1975), and Caballero-Lopez and Moraal (Caballero-Lopez, 2004). The
cut-off rigidities and the near-Earth cosmic radiation fluence rate are the basis for the third step,
computing the cosmic radiation fluence rate at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere for the 5° X 5°
grid. In the fourth step, the secondary cosmic radiation fluence rate in the atmosphere at specified
altitudes is processed at each grid point. Finally, the radiation dose rates are calculated for selected
atmospheric depths at the specified locations from the secondary particle fluence rate, using the
fluence-to-dose conversion factors based on FLUKA calculations by Pelliccioni (Pelliccioni, 2000).
The Bern model is non-commercial and is only used for scientific purposes.
2.3.10 QARM
The QinetiQ Atmospheric Radiation Model (QARM) (Lei, 2004; Dyer, 2007) employs atmospheric
response functions generated by Monte Carlo radiation transport codes, in conjunction with
cosmic radiation and solar particle spectra and computed particle cut-off rigidities, to generate the
radiation field in the atmosphere at any given location and time. In the current version (available
through the website http://qarm.space.qinetiq.com), the solar-modulated cosmic radiation spectra
19
for both protons and alpha particles are generated from the Badhwar and O’Neill model (O’Neill,
2006), while the solar particle spectra are calculated from ground level neutron monitor data in
conjunction with spacecraft data as described in (Dyer, 2003a; Dyer, 2003b). In the current version
the response functions are calculated for both protons and alpha particles using the MCNPX code
(http://mcnpx.lanl.gov). The radiation along a flight path may be calculated using either a nominal
great circle route or actual flight coordinates. Both directionality and all significant particle species
are modelled and the outputs can be used to estimate integral properties of the environment such
as ambient dose equivalent to aircrew, using the conversion coefficients of Pelliccioni (Pelliccioni,
2000), and rates of single event effects (SEEs) in avionics, using either measured input crosssections for neutrons and protons or Weibull fits to such data. The geomagnetic cut-off rigidity can
be computed using the latest model of the magnetic field, including both internal and external
source terms from the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) and the Tsyganenko
model respectively. Hence, allowance can be made for both long-term variations and short-term
disturbances during geomagnetic storms. A future version is planned to include heavy ions (Z>2).
2.3.11 SIEVERT
In France, the computerized system for flight assessment of exposure to cosmic radiation in air
transport (SIEVERT) (http://sievert-system.org; Bottollier-Depois, 2007) is delivered to airlines to
assist them in applying the European directive. The SIEVERT system was designed to be an
operational tool dedicated to legal dosimetry of aircraft crews, and uses pre-existing codes like
EPCARD to create dosimetric inputs during normal solar activity. This system provides doses that
take into account the routes flown by aircraft. These values are calculated using models verified
over several tens of flights with a satisfactory uncertainty margin. A model has also been developed
for the case of a solar particle event that allows the impact on the dose received to be assessed.
This service is provided by the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN).
Airspace is divided into cells. Each one is 1000 feet (304.8 meters) in altitude, 10° in longitude and
2° in latitude. Altogether they form a map of 265,000 cells; an effective dose rate value is assigned
to each of these cells. The time spent by the plane in each cell and the corresponding dose are
calculated; their cumulative total gives the dose received during the flight.
The map of dose rates is updated every month, taking solar activity into account. This map is
obtained using an existing model for the radiation component of galactic origin (GCR), currently
EPCARD, which allows the dose to be obtained at any point in space up to an altitude of 80,000 feet
(24,384 km). In the case of a significant solar particle event with an effect on the dose at flight
levels, a so-called ground level event (GLE), a specific model has been developed, and a specific
dose map is then created. This model is based on the atmospheric attenuation of particles with
energy comparable to those of the solar particle events and on the data from neutron monitors
located on the ground, which provide the intensity of the GLE. Forbush decreases, inducing a dose
rate decrease, are not taken into account in this dose model because a realistic conservative
approach was considered for radiation protection. In addition, regular radiation measurements,
from dosimeters installed on the ground and on aircraft, are then used to confirm and if necessary
correct the values obtained. Doses are calculated according to flight characteristics. If the
information is minimal (for instance, information available on the flight ticket), the dose value is
assessed using a standard route profile.
20
It is possible for the general public to assess the dose received during one or more flights by
accessing the SIEVERT Internet site (www.sievert-system.com). This assessment is carried out using
information contained on the flight ticket. Furthermore, general information about cosmic rays,
regulations and the risk associated with radiation is available on this web site.
21
3 Dose Data Comparison
3.1
Route doses in terms of ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), and effective dose, E
The results presented in this report are showed in an anonymous way. It is not intended to
recommend any of the participating codes in particular for radiation protection services.
Comparisons of calculations for the 23 investigated flights (Table 2.1) performed with the eleven
computer codes (Table 2.4) were made in terms of ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), and effective
dose, E, for both flight route doses and, for a specific flight, dose rates.
Figures 3.1a and 3.1b show an anonymous comparison of the total ambient dose equivalent,
H*(10), and effective dose, E, respectively, due to galactic cosmic radiation for different mid- and
long-haul flights, during solar minimum (upper diagrams) and solar maximum (lower diagrams)
conditions.
In order to discuss the data in more detail, the median for each flight was calculated and marked as
full symbols in the figures. Note that not all codes provide both quantities ambient dose
equivalent, H*(10), and effective dose, E, and therefore not all are shown in the two figures. The
sequence of flights in these figures is prepared solely for visualisation purposes and does not
reflect increasing route doses or duration of flights.
The two figures allow for a general observation: both ambient dose equivalent and effective dose
calculated for solar minimum conditions are, as expected, greater than those calculated for solar
maximum.
22
110
Solar minimum
Route ambient dose equivalent / µSv
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Flight number
110
Solar maximum
Route ambient dose equivalent / µSv
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Flight number
Figure 3.1a Anonymous comparison of the total ambient dose equivalent, H*(10),
for different mid- and long-haul flights due to galactic cosmic radiation, during solar
minimum (upper diagram) and solar maximum (lower diagram) conditions. The
median is marked with full symbols. Not all codes provide both quantities ambient
dose equivalent, H*(10), and effective dose, E, and therefore not all are shown in the
two figures.
23
110
Solar minimum
100
Route effective dose / µSv
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Flight number
110
Solar maximum
100
Route effective dose / µSv
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Flight number
Figure 3.1b Anonymous comparison of the total effective dose, E, for different midand long-haul flights due to galactic cosmic radiation, during solar minimum (upper
diagram) and solar maximum (lower diagram) conditions. The median is marked
with full symbols. Not all codes provide both quantities ambient dose equivalent,
H*(10), and effective dose, E, and therefore not all are shown in the two figures.
24
3.2
Dose rate vs. cut-off rigidity and altitude
Figures 3.2a and 3.2b show the dose rates (in terms of ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), and
effective dose, E, respectively) obtained by the codes for different vertical cut-off rigidity values,
both for solar minimum (upper diagrams) and solar maximum (lower diagrams) conditions. To give
a representative example, flight level FL370 was chosen. In order to discuss the data in more detail,
the median for each flight was calculated and marked with full symbols in the figures. Note again
that not all codes are investigated in these figures. One code provided systematically lower dose
values than the other codes. Figures 3.2a and 3.2b indicate that all data are in general in agreement
with each other within a dose rate of about  1 μSv/h. This implies that the relative data spread is
greater at high vertical cut-off rigidity values (i.e. close to the equator), approaching some 50 %,
while it is as low as about 20 % at low cut-off rigidity values (i.e. close to the geomagnetic poles). It
can also be deduced from these figures that the difference in dose rate between solar minimum
and solar maximum conditions is quite small at high vertical cut-off rigidity values. In contrast, at
low vertical cut-off rigidity values the dose rates at solar minimum conditions are some 50 % higher
than those during solar maximum conditions.
The change in dose rate with flight altitude is investigated in Figures 3.3a and 3.3b by grouping the
waypoints in different cut-off rigidity intervals (Smart, 2008) and plotting the corresponding dose
rate values at all waypoints in these intervals versus the flight altitude. In Figures 3.3a and 3.3b the
two rigidity intervals rc < 0.25 GV and rc > 16.75 GV are chosen as examples, as they represent the
lowest and largest geomagnetic shielding in this exercise, respectively. The group of larger values
in each figure corresponds to lower geomagnetic shielding, and vice versa.
Figure 3.3a shows the ambient dose equivalent rate at the solar minimum (upper diagram) and
solar maximum (lower diagram) and reveals an almost linear increase in dose rate with altitude for
all models considered. While the values of the ambient dose equivalent rate barely change
between the solar minimum and solar maximum for the high cut-off rigidity interval (median
values: dH*(10)/dt ~ 1 μSv/h at FL300 and dH*(10)/dt ~ 1.8 μSv/h at FL390), the median dose rate
decreases from ~ 4.5 μSv/h to ~ 3.5 μSv/h at FL310 and from ~ 8.5 μSv/h to ~ 5.5 μSv/h at FL390,
respectively, when the solar activity changes from solar minimum to maximum.
The differences between the ambient dose equivalent rate (Figure 3.3a) and the effective dose rate
(Figure 3.3b) are very small in the high cut-off rigidity interval. At low cut-off rigidity values below
0.25 GV, however, the median of the effective dose rate is somewhat larger than that of the
ambient dose equivalent rate (solar minimum: dE/dt ~ 5 μSv/h at FL310 up to dE/dt ~ 10 μSv/h at
FL390; solar maximum: dE/dt ~ 3.5 μSv/h at FL310 up to dE/dt ~ 6.5 μSv/h at FL390).
25
14
Solar minimum
Ambient dose equivalent rate / µSv/h
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Vertical cut-off rigidity / GV
14
Solar maximum
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Figure 3.2a Anonymous comparison of the total ambient dose equivalent rate for
different mid- and long-haul flights due to galactic cosmic radiation for FL370,
during solar minimum (upper diagram) and solar maximum (lower diagram)
conditions. The median is marked with full symbols. Not all codes provide both
quantities ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), and effective dose, E, and therefore not
all are shown in the two figures.
26
14
Solar minimum
13
12
Effective dose rate / µSv/h
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
14
Solar maximum
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Figure 3.2b Anonymous comparison of the total effective dose rate for different midand long-haul flights due to galactic cosmic radiation for FL370, during solar
minimum (upper diagram) and solar maximum (lower diagram) conditions. The
median is marked with full symbols. Not all codes provide both quantities ambient
dose equivalent, H*(10), and effective dose, E, and therefore not all are shown in the
two figures.
27
14
13
Solar minimum
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
Altitude / FL
14
13
Solar maximum
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
Altitude / FL
Figure 3.3a Anonymous comparison of the total ambient dose equivalent rate as a
function of altitude for rigidity values rc < 0.25 GV (upper data group) and rc > 16.75
GV (lower data group), during solar minimum (upper diagram) and solar maximum
(lower diagram) conditions. The median is marked with full symbols. Not all codes
provide both quantities ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), and effective dose, E, and
therefore not all are shown in the two figures.
28
14
13
Solar minimum
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
370
380
390
400
410
Altitude / FL
14
13
Solar maximum
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
Altitude / FL
Figure 3.3b Anonymous comparison of the effective dose rate as a function of
altitude for rigidity values rc < 0.25 GV (upper data group) and rc > 16.75 GV (lower
data group), during solar minimum (upper diagram) and solar maximum (lower
diagram) conditions. The median is marked with full symbols. Not all codes provide
both quantities ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), and effective dose, E, and therefore
not all are shown in the two figures.
29
3.3
Dose rate profile over flight time
In order to investigate the behaviour of the different codes with regard to calculation of dose rates,
both for the ambient dose equivalent rate, dH*(10)/dt, and the effective dose rate, dE/dt, a single
flight profile was selected and the results from the different participants were compared. The flight
was selected to cover a cut-off rigidity and altitude range as extensive as possible. These
preconditions are especially met by the long-haul flight (number 23 in Table 2.1) from Singapore
(WSSS) to Newark (KEWR) that lasts for more than 17 hours and covers cruising altitudes between
FL300 and FL410, with vertical cut-off rigidity values roughly between 0 GV and 17 GV. The vertical
cut-off rigidity obtained from (Smart, 2008) and the flight altitude as a function of flight time are
illustrated in Figure 3.4. The exact waypoint data of this flight are given in Appendix 2.
It must be emphasized that the dashed lines in the figure do not represent the actual flight profile
but are meant only to guide the eye between the waypoints. The symbols mark the individual
waypoints for which the exact time, position and altitude are available; the way in which time
integration of the dose values is performed in between depends on the individual codes.
In the beginning of the flight the geomagnetic shielding is on the order of 17 GV or more, roughly
the global maximum. In combination with the very low cruising altitude (FL300), the dose rates
during the first hours of the flight can be interpreted as an estimate for the lowest values to be
expected at a given time in the solar cycle at commercially flown altitudes. Towards the end of the
flight, on the other hand, the geomagnetic shielding is close to zero and the flight altitude
increases to FL410. This combination leads to dose rates which can be seen as an estimate for the
maximum dose rates to be expected during a given time in the solar cycle.
In Figure 3.5a, the resulting values of the ambient dose equivalent rate are shown for solar
minimum (upper panel) and maximum (lower panel) conditions. The expected increase in the dose
rates towards the end of the flight is clearly visible, and the general slope is reproduced by all
participating codes. The median of the ambient dose equivalent rate ranges from about 1 μSv/h for
very low altitudes and high geomagnetic shielding for both solar minimum and maximum
conditions up to about 9 μSv/h (solar minimum) and 6 μSv/h (solar maximum), respectively.
The corresponding effective dose rates are presented in Figure 3.5b. The median values of the
effective dose rates in the beginning of the flight are slightly higher than, but very similar to, those
of the ambient dose equivalent rates. At later times, however, and especially close to the end of the
flight, when the geomagnetic shielding is low and the altitude large, the effective dose rates are
somewhat higher: dE/dt ~ 10-11 μSv/h (solar minimum) and dE/dt ~ 7 μSv/h (solar maximum)
compared to dH*(10)/dt ~ 9 μSv/h (solar minimum) and dH*(10)/dt ~ 6 μSv/h (solar maximum).
30
Figure. 3.4 Flight profile for Singapore-Newark (flight 23 in Table 2.1). Cut-off data
(red dashed curve) shown here as an example are calculated based on (Smart,
2008). Altitude is shown as the dashed blue curve. Note that the dashed lines do
not represent an actual flight profile but are meant only to guide the eve between
the waypoints. Similar figures for the other flights are shown in Appendix 2.
31
14
13
Solar minimum
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
01:00
03:00
05:00
07:00
09:00
11:00
13:00
15:00
17:00
19:00
Universal time / hh:mm
14
13
Solar maximum
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
01:00
03:00
05:00
07:00
09:00
11:00
13:00
15:00
17:00
19:00
Figure 3.5a Anonymous comparison of the radiation exposure profile of a flight
route from Singapore to Newark (flight 23 in Table 2.1) in terms of ambient dose
equivalent rate, dH*(10)/dt, at solar minimum (upper figure) and solar maximum
(lower figures). The median is marked with full symbols. Not all codes provide
both quantities ambient dose equivalent, H*(10) and effective dose E, and
therefore not all are shown in the two figures.
32
14
13
Solar minimum
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
01:00
03:00
05:00
07:00
09:00
11:00
13:00
15:00
17:00
19:00
15:00
17:00
19:00
14
13
Solar maximum
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
01:00
03:00
05:00
07:00
09:00
11:00
13:00
Figure 3.5b Anonymous comparison of the radiation exposure profile of a flight
route from Singapore to Newark (flight 23 in Table 2.1) in terms of the effective
dose rate dE/dt due to galactic cosmic radiation at solar minimum (upper figures)
and solar maximum (lower figures). The median is marked with full symbols. Not
all codes provide both quantities ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), and effective
dose, E, and therefore not all are shown in the two figures.
33
4 Discussion
In Figures 3.1a and 3.1b, the results obtained by the different codes for the selected flights are
summarized, both in terms of H*(10) and effective dose E. Clearly, the rough trend of increasing
doses for flights 1 to 23 was reproduced by all codes. As expected, doses for a given flight
calculated at solar minimum are higher than those calculated at solar maximum, due to the lower
shielding effect of the interplanetary magnetic field against the galactic component of cosmic
radiation during solar minimum. Similarly, the calculated results for shorter flights at lower
latitudes result in lower doses (H*(10) or E) than those for longer flights at higher latitudes,
reflecting the fact that the flight time and the shielding effect of the geomagnetic field are
important parameters in the dose from cosmic radiation.
In order to compare the results in more detail, Figs. 4.1a and 4.1b show the same data, but now the
relative deviation (Hcalc – Hmedian)/Hmedian of the calculated dose for a given flight from the median of
all results for that flight is shown. There is obviously an increased spread in the dose ratios for lower
route doses, but not for larger ones. The reason for this could not be investigated in this
comparison, as this would require a detailed description by all code providers of their
mathematical procedures to calculate the dose or dose rates in between the given waypoints,
especially during the ascent and descent phase. All that can be deduced is that for flights with low
route doses the scatter in the dose ratios of the different codes is larger than that for flights with
larger route doses.
The recommendation on acceptable uncertainties in radiation protection as formulated by the
ICRP in 1997 may help in determining whether a code can be accepted for aircraft crew radiation
protection purposes. In its publication 75 (ICRP, 1997) it is stated that in workplace fields the
“... overall uncertainty at the 95 % confidence level in the estimation of effective dose around the
relevant dose limit may well be a factor of 1.5 in either direction for photons and may be
substantially greater for neutrons of uncertain energy and for electrons. Greater uncertainties are
also inevitable at low levels of effective dose for all qualities of radiation.”
Frequency distributions have been produced from the data in Figures 4.1a and 4.1b for the relative
deviations from the median for both the H*(10) and E data (see Figure 4.2). The scatter in the data
as shown above is not statistical in nature but it can be used to estimate a type B uncertainty, also
called a systematic uncertainty, for all the codes participating in this comparison exercise. The
results of this comparison are that most of the calculated route doses are within a range of about
10 % from their median (1 σ is 9 % for H*(10) data, and 11 % for E data). In general, for most flights
and codes, the calculated doses (H*(10) or E) differ by less than about 30 % from their median at
a 95 % confidence level.
In the case of aircrew exposure, single route doses presented in this report do not exceed 100 µSv
per flight. Therefore, the annual doses of air crew members will not exceed 10 mSv after the
maximum allowed block flying time of 900 h per year for aircrew (EC 2000) is taken into account.
34
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
Route ambient dose equivalent deviation
relative to the median / %
Solar minimum
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Flight number
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
Route ambient dose equivalent deviation
Solar maximum
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Flight number
Figure 4.1a Anonymous comparison of the deviation of H*(10) relative to the
median at solar minimum (upper figure) and solar maximum (lower figure). Not all
codes provide both quantities H*(10) and E, and therefore not all are shown in the
two figures.
35
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
Route effective dose deviation
Solar minimum
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Flight number
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
Route effective dose deviation
Solar maximum
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Flight number
Figure 4.1b Anonymous comparison of the deviation of the effective dose E relative
to the median at solar minimum (upper figure) and solar maximum (lower figure).
Not all codes provide both quantities H*(10) and E, and therefore not all are shown
in the two figures.
36
Figure 4.2 Relative deviation of all calculated route ambient dose equivalent values
H*(10) (left) and effective dose values E (right) from their medians.
37
5 Conclusions
Eleven codes used for calculating doses to pilots and cabin crew members have been used in
a comparison exercise organised by the EURADOS Working Group 11 on High Energy Radiation
Fields on harmonization of aircrew dosimetry practices in European countries. Some of these codes
are based on simulation of the secondary field of cosmic radiation by Monte Carlo techniques;
others use analytical solutions of the problem, while still others are mainly based on a fit to
experimental data. One code provided systematically lower dose and dose rate values (up to -40 %
at low latitudes compared to the median) than all the other participating codes, while another
code showed a few dose and dose rate values that were higher by some +30 % (also at low
latitude). The overall agreement between the codes, however, was better than 20 % from the
median.
The agreement between the codes is considered to be fully satisfactory. Actually dose estimates in
radiation protection generally include uncertainties no better than 20 % to 30 %. This conclusion
is further substantiated by the fact that most of these codes have also previously been validated by
measurements (Lindborg, 2004), with an agreement between measured and calculated doses
better than 20 %. In any case, it is recommended that any code to be used for dose assessment of
radiation exposure due to secondary cosmic radiation at aviation altitudes should be validated by
experimental data or by a comparison as presented in this report. The agreement should be within
30 % at a 95 % confidence level.
38
6 References
(Agostinelli, 2003) Agostinelli et al., Geant4 – a simulation toolkit, Nuclear Instruments and
Methods in Physics Research A, 5006, 250-303 (2003)
(Badhwar, 1997) Badhwar, G. D. The radiation environment in low-Earth orbit. Radiat. Res. 148, 3–
10, (1997).
(Badhwar, 2000) Badhwar, G.D., O’Neill, P.M. and Troung, A.G., Galactic cosmic radiation
environmental model. Private communication, (2000)
(Beck, 1999) Beck, P., Ambrosi, P., Schrewe, U., and O’Brien, K. (1999) ACREM, Aircrew Radiation
Exposure Monitoring, ARC Seibersdorf Research Report OEFZS-G-0008, November
1999 (ARC Seibersdorf, Austria)
(Beck, 2007) Beck,P., Latocha,M., Rollet,S., Dormann,L. and Pelliccioni, M. Measurements and
simulation of the radiation exposure to aircraft crew workplaces due to cosmic
radiation in the atmosphere. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 126(1-4), 564-567 (2007)
(Behrens, 2010) R. Behrens Uncertainties in external dosimetry: analytical vs. Monte Carlo method.
Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 138 (2010), 346-352
(Bottollier-Depois, 2007) Bottollier-Depois, J.F., Blanchard, P., Clairand, I., Dessarps,P., Fuller, N.,
Lantos, P., Saint-Lô, D. and Trompier. F. An operational approach for aircraft crew
dosimetry: the SIEVERT system. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 125(1-4), 421-424 (2007)
(Bottollier-Depois, 2009) Bottolier-Depois, J.F., Beck, P., Reitz, G., Rühm, W., Wissmann, F. (Eds.), Proc.
Cosmic Radiation and Aircrew Exposure, EURADOS Workshop, Braunschweig, January
29-30, 2009, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 136, 231-328 (2009)
(Böhm, 1994) J. Böhm, V. N. Lebedev and J. C. McDonald Performance testing of dosimetry
services and its regulatory aspects. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 54 pp. 311-319 (1994)
(Bütikofer, 2007) Bütikofer, R., Flückiger, E.O. and Desorgher, L. Characteristics of near real-time
cutoff calculations on a local and global scale, 30th International Cosmic Ray
Conference, Mérida, México (2007)
(Caballero-Lopez, 2004) Caballero-Lopez, R.A., and H. Moraal, Limitations of the force field equation
to describe cosmic ray modulation, J. Geophys. Res., 109, A01101,
doi:10.1029/2003JA010098, 2004
(Cooke, 1991) Cooke, D. J., Humble, J. E., Shea, M. A., Smart, D. F., Lund, N., Rasmussen, I. L., Byrnak,
B., Goret, P., and Petrou, N., On Cosmic-Ray Cut-Off Terminology, Il Nuovo Cimento,
Vol. 14 C, No. 3., pp. 213-234 (1991)
(Desorgher,
2003)
Desorgher,
L.,
MAGNETOSCOSMICS
http://reat/space.qinetiq.com/septimess/magcos
(Desorgher,
2005) Desorgher, L. PLANETOCOSMICS
http://cosray.unibe.ch/~laurent/planetocosmics
Users'
Software
User
Manual,
Manua,
2003.
2005.
(Desorgher, 2006) Desorgher, L., 2006. MAGNETOCOSMICS: Geant 4 Application for Simulating the
Propagetion of Cosmic Rays Through the Earth’s Magnetosphere. University of Bern,
http://cosray.unibe.ch/~laurent/magnetocosmics/
39
(Dyer, 2003a) C. S. Dyer, F. Lei, S. N. Clucas, D. F. Smart, M. A. Shea, "Calculations and observations of
solar particle enhancements to the radiation environment at aircraft altitudes" Adv.
Space Res., vol. 32, pp. 81-93, 2003
(Dyer, 2003b) C. S. Dyer, F. Lei, S. N. Clucas, D. F. Smart, M. A. Shea, “Solar particle enhancements of
single event effect rates at aircraft altitudes,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 50, No. 6, pp.
2038-2045, Dec. 2003
(Dyer, 2007) Dyer, C., Lei, F., Hands, A. and Truscott, P. Solar particle events in the QinetiQ
Atmospheric Radiation Model. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 54(4), 1071-1075, (2007)
(EC, 1996) European Commission, European Radiation Dosimetry Group: Exposure of Air Crew to
Cosmic Radiation. A Report of EURADOS Working Group 11. EURADOS Report
1996.01.
European Commission Report Radiation Protection 85 (European
Commission, Luxembourg)
(EC, 1997) European Commission, contract F13PCT920026 Detection and dosimetry of neutrons
and charged particles at aviation altitudes in the Earth’s atmosphere, in Nuclear
fission safety programme 1992-94, Final report, 1, 283-338, (European Communities,
Brussels, Belgium)
(EC, 2000) European Commission, European Community Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27
November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working
Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European
Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European
Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the
International Air Carrier Association (IACA). Official Journal of the European
Communities L 302/57 (2000)
(EC, 2004) European Commission, European Radiation Dosimetry Group WG5 Report Cosmic
Radiation Exposure of Aircraft Crew: Compilation of Measured and Calculated Data,
European Commission, Radiation Protection 140 (European Commission,
Luxembourg)
(EURADOS, 2004) The European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), Cosmic radiation exposure
of aircraft crew - Compilation of measured and calculated data, European
Commission, Radiation Protection Issue No 140 (ISBN 92-894-8448-9) (2004). (Editors:
L. Lindborg, D. T. Bartlett, P. Beck, I. R. McAulay, K. Schnuer, H. Schraube and F. Spurný)
(Felsberger, 2009) Felsberger, E., O’Brien, K. and Kindl, P. IASON-FREE: theory and experimental
comparisons. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 136(4), 267-273 (2009)
(Felsberger, 2011) Felsberger, E., O’Brien, K. and Kindl, P. IASON-FREE: Successful, well established,
modern Aircrew Dosimetry. Unpublished internal document, IASON GmbH (2011).
Available on request: iason-free@iason.eu
(Ferrari, 2005) Ferrari,A., Sala,P.R., Fasso,A., and Ranft,J. FLUKA: A Multi Particle Transport Code. 386. 2005. Geneva, Switzerland, CERN, INFN, SLAC
(Friedberg, 1992) Friedberg, W., F. E. Duke, L. Snyder, K. O'Brien, D. E. Parker, M. A. Shea, D. F. Smart.
Computer program CARI. U. S. Department of Commerce, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA. Order No. PB 92-502038 (1992)
40
(Friedberg, 1993) Friedberg, W. F. E. Duke, L. Snyder, D. N. Faulkner, K. O'Brien, E. B. Darden, Jr., D. E.
Parker. The Cosmic Radiation Environment at Air Carrier Flight Altitudes and Possible
Associated Health Risks. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 48(1):21-25 (1993)
(Gaisser, 1998) Gaisser, T.K. and Stanev, T. Cosmic Rays. European Physics Journal C, 3, 132-137
(1998)
(Gaisser, 2001) Gaisser, T. K., Honda, M., Lipari, P. and Stanev, T., Primary Spectrum to 1 TeV and
Beyond, Proceedings of the 27th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC 2001),
Hamburg, Germany, 643-646, 7-15 August 2001
(Garcia-Munoz, 1975) Garcia-Munoz, M., Mason, G.M. and Simpson, J.A. The Annomalous 4He
component in the Cosmic Ray Spectra of ≤ 50 MeV per Z nucleon During 1972-1974.
Astrophys. J. 202, 265, (1975)
(Gleeson, 1968) Gleeson, L.J. and Axford, W.I. Solar Modulation of Galactic Cosmic Rays. Astrophys.
J. 154, 1011, (1968)
(Heinrich, 1979) Heinrich, W. and Spill, A., Geomagnetic shielding of cosmic rays for different
satellite orbits. Journal of Geophysical Research, 84, A8, 4401-4004 (1979)
(http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi) http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/phi/phi.html
(http://cosray.unibe.ch) http://cosray.unibe.ch/~laurent/planetocosmics/
(http://inf.infn.it) http://www.lnf.infn.it/lnfadmin/radiation/conversioncoefficient.htm
(http://physics.nau.edu) http://www.physics.nau.edu/people/KeranObrien.html
(http://mcnpx.lanl.gov) MCNPX home page: http://mcnpx.lanl.gov
(http://sievert-system.org) SIEVERT home page: http://www.sievert-system.org
(ICRP, 1990) ICRP, International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 Recommendations of
the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60.
Tarrytown, NY: Elsevier Science; 1991
(ICRP, 1996) ICRP Publication 74: Conversion Coefficients for use in Radiological Protection against
External Radiation. Annals of the ICRP Vol. 26/3-4 (1996)
(ICRP, 1997) ICRP Publication 75: International Commission on Radiological Protection General
principles for the radiation protection of workers. (Oxford: Pergamon Press) (1997)
(ICRP, 2007) ICRP Publication 103: 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP Vol.37(2/4) (2007)
(Iwase, 2002) Iwase, H., Niita, K., Nakamura, T. Development of a general-purpose particle and
heavy ion transport Monte Carlo code. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 39, 1142-1151 (2002)
(Kelly, 1999) Kelly, M., Menzel, H.-G., Ryan, T., and Schnuer, K. (1999) Eds, Proc. Int. Conf. Cosmic
Radiation and Aircrew Exposure, Dublin, July 1-3, 1998, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 86, 245356 (1999)
(Koi, 2003) Koi , T., Asai, M., Wright D. H., Niita, K., Nara, Y., Amako, K., and Sasaki, T., Interfacing the
JQMD and JAM nuclear reaction codes to Geant4, SLAC-PUB 9978 (2003)
(Latocha, 2009) Latocha, M., Beck, P., and Rollet, S., AVIDOS – a software package for European
accredited aviation dosimetry. Radiat.Prot.Dosimetry, 136(4) 286-290 (2009)
41
(Lei, 2004) Lei, F., Clucas, S., Dyer, C. and Truscott, P. An atmospheric radiation model based on
response matrices generated by detailed Monte Carlo simulations of cosmic ray
interactions. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 51(6), 3442-3451 (2004)
(Lei, 2006) Lei, F., Hands, A., Dyer, C. and Truscott, P. Improvements to and validations of the
QinetiQ Atmospheric Radiation Model (QARM). IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 53(4), 1851-1858
(2006)
(Lewis, 2001) Lewis, B.J., McCall, M.J., Green, A.R., Bennett, L.G.I., Pierre, M., Schrewe, U.J., O’Brien, K.
and Felsberger, E. Aircrew Exposure from Cosmic Radiation on Commercial Airline
Routes. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 93(4), 293-314 (2001)
(Lewis, 2002) Lewis, B.J., Bennett, L.G.I., Green, A.R., McCall, M.J., Ellaschuk, B., Butler A. and Pierre, M.
Galactic and Solar Radiation Exposure to Aircrew During a Solar Cycle. Radiat. Prot.
Dosim. 102(3), 207-227 (2002)
(Lewis, 2004) Lewis, B.J., Desormeaux, M., Green, A.R., Bennett, L.G.I., Butler, A., McCall, M. and Saez
Vergara, J.C. Assessment of Aircrew Radiation Exposure by Further Measurements and
Model Development. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 111(2), 151-171 (2004)
(Lindborg, 2004) Lindborg, L., Bartlett, D., Beck, P., McAulay, I., Schnuer, K., Schraube, G. and Spurny,
F., 2004. EURADOS. Cosmic Radiation Exposure of Aircraft Crew: Compilation of
Measured and Calculated Data. Luxembourg, Belgium, European Commission, Office
for Official Publication of the European Communities. 1-271
(Lillhök, 2007) Lillhök, J., Beck ,P., Botollier-Depois, J.F., Latocha, M., Lindborg, L. Roos, H., Roth, J.,
Schraube, H., Spurny, F., Stehno, G., Trompier, F., and Wissman, F. (2007), “Comparison
of dose equivalent meters for cosmic radiation exposure and calculations at constant
flight conditions. “Radiat Meas. 42 . 323-332
(Mares, 2004) Mares, V., Roesler, S. and Schraube, H.: Averaged particle dose conversion factors in
air crew dosimetry. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 110, 1-4 , 2004, pp. 371-376
(Mares, 2007) Mares,V. and Leuthold,G., Altitude-dependent dose conversion coefficients in
EPCARD. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 126(1-4), 581-584 (2007)
(Mares, 2009) Mares, V., Maczka, T., Leuthold, G. Rühm, W., 2009. Air crew dosimetry with a new
version of EPCARD, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. (2009), Vol. 136, No. 4, pp. 262-266
(Maus, 2005) Maus, S. et al., The 10th-Generation International Geomagnetic Reference Field,
Geophysical Journal International, 161, 561-565, doi: 10.1111/j.1365246X.2005.02641.x (2005)
(MEXT, 2006) Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/housha/sonota/06051009.htm
(2006),
accessed on Nov. 2009 (in Japanese)
(NCRP, 1993) NCRP, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Limitation of
Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. NCRP Report No. 116. Bethesda MD: National Council
on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 1993
(NIRS, 2006) National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS): Japanese Internet System for
Calculation
of
Aviation
Route
Doses
(JISCARD),
http://www.nirs.go.jp/research/jiscard/index.shtml (2006), accessed on Nov. 2009.
(mostly in Japanese)
42
(Nymmik, 1992) Nymmik, R.A., Panasyuk, M.I., Pervaja, T.I., Suslov, A. A model of galactic cosmic ray
fluxes. Nucl. Tracks Radiat. Meas. 20, 427-429 (1992)
(O’Brien, 1992) O'Brien, K., W. Friedberg, F. E. Duke, L. Snyder, E. B. Darden, Jr., H. H. Sauer. The
Exposure of Aircraft Crews to Radiations of Extraterrestrial Origin. Radiat Prot Dosim
45(1/4):145-162 (1992)
(O’Brien, 1994) O'Brien, K., W. Friedberg. Atmospheric Cosmic Rays at Aircraft Altitudes. Environ Intl
20(5):645-663 (1994)
(O’Brien, 1996) O'Brien, K., W. Friedberg, H. H. Sauer, D. F. Smart. Atmospheric Cosmic Rays and
Solar Energetic Particles at Aircraft Altitudes. Environ Intl 22(Suppl. 1): S9-S44 (1996)
(O’Brien, 2000) O’Brien, K., Sauer, H. An adjoint method of calculation of solar-particle-event dose
rates. Technology 7, 449-456 (2000)
(O’Brien, 2003) O’Brien, K; Smart, DF; Shea, MA; Felsberger, E; Schrewe, U; Friedberg, W; Copeland, K.
World-wide radiation dosage calculations for air crew members. Advan Space Res
31(4): 835-840 (2003)
(O’Brien, 2005) O’Brien, K. The theory of cosmic-ray and high-energy solar-particle transport in the
atmosphere. In The Natural Radiation Environment VII, Seventh International
Symposium on the Natural Radiation Environment (NRE-VII). McLaughlin, J. P.,
Simopoulos, S. E. and Steinhaüsler, F., Eds. (Amsterdam, Boston, Heidelberg, London,
New York, Paris, San Diego, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney,Tokyo: Elsevier), 29–44
(2005). ISBN: 0-08-044137-8
(O’Brien, 2007) O’Brien, K. Cosmic-ray propagation through the disturbed heliosphere. Acta
Astronautica. 60(4-7), 541-546 (2007)
(O’Brien, 2008) O’Brien, K., Felsberger, E. and Kindl, P. Common errors in the calculation of aircrew
doses from cosmic rays. Advanced in Geosciences Vol. 19: Planetary Sciences (2008),
593-599 (2008). In: Advanced in Geosciences, Vol. 19: Planetary Science, by Anil
Bhardwaj, World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN: 9789812838155 (2010)
(O’Brien, 2010) O’Brien, K. The local all-particle cosmic-ray spectrum. The Astrophysical Journal. 716,
544-549 (2010)
(O’Neill, 2006) P.M. O'Neill, “Badhwar–O'Neill galactic cosmic ray model update based on advanced
composition explorer (ACE) energy spectra from 1997 to present,” Adv. Space Res, 37,
p. 1727, 2006
(O’Sullivan, 1999) O’Sullivan, D. (1999) Co-ordinator. Study of Radiation Fields and Dosimetry at
Aviation Altitudes: Final Report January 1996-June 1999. The Dublin Institute for
Advanced Studies School of Cosmic Physics Report 99-9-1 (Dublin Institute for
Advanced Studies, Dublin, Ireland)
(O’Sullivan, 2004) O’Sullivan, D, Tommasino, L., Schraube, H., Grillmaier, R., Bartlett, D.T., Lindborg,
L., Heinrich, W., and Silari, M. (2004), Investigations of Radiation Fields at Aircraft
Altitudes, Final Report of European Commission contract no. F14P-CT950011 (Dublin
Institute for Advanced Studies, Dublin, Ireland)
43
(Pelliccioni, 2000) Pelliccioni, M. Overview of fluence-to-effective dose and fluence-to-ambient
dose equivalent conversion coeffi-cients for high energy radiation calculated using
FLUKA code. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 88(4), 279–297 (2000)
(Peters, 1958) Peters, B. Handbook of Physics. E. U. Condon and H. Odishaw, editors, New York,
McGraw-Hill Co., 9/207-45 (1958)
(Picone, 2002) Picone, J. M., Hedin, A., E., Drob, D. P., and Aikin, A. C., NRMLMSISE-00 empirical
model of the atmosphere: Statistical comparisons and scientific issues, Journal of
Geophysical Research, , 107, 1468, doi:10.1029/2002JA009430 (2002)
(Reitz, 1991) Reitz, G., Schnuer, K., and Shaw, K.B., (Eds), Proc. Workshop Radiation Exposure of Civil
Aircrew, Luxembourg, June 25-27, 1991, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 48, 3-140 (1993)
(Roesler, 2002) Roesler, S., Heinrich, W. and Schraube, H. Monte Carlo calculation of the radiation
field at aircraft altitudes. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 98(4), 367-388 (2002)
(Sannikov, 1997) Sannikov, A.V., Savitskaya, E.N. Ambient dose equivalent conversion factors for
high energy neutron based on the ICRP 60 recommendations. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 70,
383-386 (1997)
(Sato, 2008) Sato, T., Yasuda, H., Niita, K., Endo, A., Sihver, L. Development of PARMA: PHITS-based
Analytical Radiation Model in the Atmosphere. Radiat. Res. 170, 244-259 (2008)
(Schraube, 2002) Schraube, H., Leuthold, G., Heinrich, W., Roesler, S., Mares, V. and Schraube, G.:
EPCARD – European program package for the calculation of aviation route doses,
User’s manual. GSF-National Research Center, Neuherberg, Germany (2002). ISSN
0721 - 1694. GSF-Report 08/02
(Schrewe, 2000) Schrewe, U. J. Global measurements of the radiation exposure of civil air crew from
1997 to 1999. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 91(4), 347-364 (2000)
(Shea, 2000) Shea, M.A. and Smart, D.F. Cosmic Ray Implications for Human Health. Space Science
Reviews, 93, 187-205 (2000)
(Smart, 1997) Smart, D.F. and Shea, M.A. World grid of cosmic ray vertical cut-off rigidities for Epoch
1990.0. Proceedings of 25th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Durban, South
Africa, 401-404 (1997)
(Smart, 2008) Smart, D.F. and Shea, M.A. World Grid of Calculated Cosmic Ray Vertical Cutoff
Rigidities for Epoch 1995.0 Proceedings of 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference,
Merida, Mexico, 733-736 (2008)
(Takada, 2007) Takada, M., Lewis, B.J., Boudreau, M., Al Anid, H. and Bennett, L.G.I. Modelling of
Aircrew Radiation Exposure from Galactic Cosmic Rays and Solar Particle Events.
Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 124(4), 289-318 (2007).
(US FAA, 2011) U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Civil Aerospace
Medical Institute. Website “Galactic Radiation Received In Flight” at URL
jag.cami.jccbi.gov/cariprofile.asp (accessed 1 March 2011)
(Usoskin, 2005) Usoskin, I., G., Alanko-Huotari, G., Kovaltsov, A., and Mursula, K., Heliospheric
modulation of cosmic rays: Monthly reconstruction for 1951-2004, Journal of
Geophysical Resarch, 110, 12,108, doi: 10.1029/2005JA011250(2005)
(Watanabe, 2005) Watanabe, Y., Fukahori, T., Kosako, K., Shigyo, N., Murata, T., Yamano, N., Hino, T.,
Maki, K., Nakashima, H., Odano, N., Chiba, S. Nuclear data evaluations for JENDL High-
44
Energy File. In Proceedings of International Conference on Nuclear Data for Science
and Technology. pp.326-331, AIP CP769; Melville, NY; American Institute of Physics
(2005)
(Wissmann, 2006) Wissmann, F. Long-term measurements of H*(10) at aviation altitudes in the
northern hemisphere. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 121(4), 347-357 (2006)
(Wissmann, 2010) Wissmann, F., Reginatto, M. and Möller T. The ambient dose equivalent at flight
altitudes: a fit to a large set of data using a Bayesian approach. J. Radiol. Prot. 30, 513524 (2010)
(Yasuda,
2008a) Yasuda, H.: JISCARD EX Personal Edition User’s Manual (ver.1.0).
http://www.nirs.go.jp/research/jiscard/ex/manual_e.pdf (2008), accessed on Nov.
2009
(Yasuda, 2008b) Yasuda, H., Sato, T., Terakado, M. A personal use program for calculation of
aviation route doses. Proc. of 12th International Congress of the International
Radiation Protection Association, http://www.irpa12.org.ar/fullpapers/FP3037.pdf
(2008)
45
Appendix 1: ICAO Airport Codes
Table. A-1.1: The four-letter alphanumeric code of airports as defined by the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO).
ICAO code Airport
LFPG Paris
KJFK New York
KIAD Washington
KSFO San Francisco
SBGL Rio de Janeiro
RJAA Tokyo
FAJS Johannesburg
WSSS Singapore
KEWR Newark
OMDB Dubai
KIAH Houston
KORD Chicago
ZBAA Beijing
ZSPD Shanghai
VHHH Hong Kong
VTBD Bangkok
YSSY Sydney
NZAA Auckland
46
Appendix 2: Flight Profiles
The dashed lines shown in the figures do not represent an actual flight profile but are meant only
to guide the eye between the waypoints. Note that the way in which calculations are performed
between the waypoints depends on the individual codes.
Air navigation data of the 23 investigated flights during solar maximum (09/2007) and solar
minimum (08/2000). Flight profiles are graphically presented (left) and waypoints are listed (right).
001;WSSS;YSSY;12/09/2007;01:50;12/09/2007;08:28;
001;AER;000;00:00;012100N;1035900E;
001;TOC;350;00:20;003400S;1060000E;
001;INT;350;03:18;173600S;1234800E;
001;INT;350;03:35;190000S;1260600E;
001;INT;370;03:40;192400S;1264800E;
001;TOD;370;06:15;320000S;1480000E;
001;AER;000;06:38;335600S;1511000E;
002;YSSY;VTBD;12/09/2007;07:16;12/09/2007;16:05;
002;AER;000;00:00;335600S;1511000E;
002;TOC;300;00:19;320000S;1480000E;
002;INT;260;00:28;313000S;1470000E;
002;INT;260;01:04;290000S;1443600E;
002;INT;300;01:20;273000S;1433000E;
002;INT;340;01:45;251800S;1410900E;
002;INT;340;02:21;213600S;1375400E;
002;INT;340;03:07;163300S;1335400E;
002;INT;340;03:44;122400S;1305400E;
002;INT;360;04:04;104200S;1290000E;
002;INT;360;04:17;090600S;1274200E;
002;INT;360;04:56;045400S;1240000E;
002;INT;360;05:43;000000N;1193000E;
002;INT;350;06:24;040600N;1154800E;
002;INT;350;07:14;081200N;1101200E;
002;INT;360;07:46;104800N;1063600E;
002;TOD;360;08:32;130000N;1020000E;
002;AER;000;08:49;135500N;1003600E;
47
003;YSSY;VHHH;12/09/2007;05:08;12/09/2007;13:50;
003;AER;000;00:00;335600S;1511000E;
003;TOC;300;00:21;323600S;1493600E;
003;INT;300;01:08;270900S;1454200E;
003;INT;340;01:58;220000S;1414800E;
003;INT;360;02:36;181200S;1385400E;
003;INT;360;03:17;135400S;1353600E;
003;INT;360;04:12;080600S;1311800E;
003;INT;380;04:52;033600S;1281200E;
003;INT;390;05:41;020000N;1245400E;
003;INT;390;06:17;063300N;1221500E;
003;INT;390;07:01;114200N;1194200E;
003;INT;390;07:50;174800N;1163000E;
003;TOD;390;08:12;200000N;1151200E;
003;AER;000;08:42;221800N;1135400E;
004;LFPG;FAJS;12/09/2007;21:25;13/09/2007;07:23;
004;AER;000;00:00;490036N;0023254E;
004;TOC;230;00:16;475224N;0020536E;
004;INT;350;01:32;390000N;0060500E;
004;INT;330;02:53;280600N;0083700E;
004;INT;370;04:07;172636N;0113000E;
004;INT;370;05:16;075936N;0132854E;
004;INT;370;06:29;014942S;0145424E;
004;INT;370;07:50;114700S;0195200E;
004;INT;370;08:53;195924S;0232318E;
004;TOD;370;09:36;245400S;0271206E;
004;AER;000;09:58;260800S;0281430E;
005;NZAA;WSSS;12/09/2007;01:00;12/09/2007;10:50;
005;AER;000;00:00;370000S;1744700E;
005;TOC;310;00:17;362000S;1730100E;
005;INT;320;01:30;321200S;1630000E;
005;INT;340;03:44;233800S;1460400E;
005;INT;350;05:21;160100S;1342600E;
005;INT;360;06:35;095200S;1260700E;
005;INT;360;08:05;042000S;1145600E;
005;TOD;370;09:17;001300N;1055500E;
005;AER;000;09:47;012100N;1035900E;
48
006;FAJS;LFPG;12/09/2007;18:00;13/09/2007;04:07;
006;AER;000;00:00;260800S;0281430E;
006;TOC;280;00:16;250106S;0271748E;
006;INT;310;01:19;175012S;0222606E;
006;INT;310;02:41;073424S;0171500E;
006;INT;350;03:56;021230N;0141836E;
006;INT;350;05:06;115254N;0130636E;
006;INT;350;06:22;220000N;0122806E;
006;INT;350;07:29;304436N;0110954E;
006;INT;380;08:40;402124N;0085336E;
006;TOD;380;09:41;475036N;0042630E;
006;AER;000;10:07;490036N;0023254E;
007;LFPG;SBGL;12/09/2007;04:00;12/09/2007;14:48;
007;AER;000;00:00;490036N;0023254E;
007;TOC;350;00:25;460300N;0015654E;
007;INT;290;01:35;355000N;0031412W;
007;INT;360;02:43;290000N;0100030W;
007;INT;390;03:53;203006N;0130330W;
007;INT;390;05:05;131954N;0182542W;
007;INT;390;06:09;062042N;0225830W;
007;INT;390;07:31;030330S;0285324W;
007;INT;390;08:45;113542S;0342148W;
007;INT;390;09:49;182542S;0390048W;
007;TOD;370;10:24;215336S;0413254W;
007;AER;000;10:48;224836S;0431500W;
008;WSSS;NZAA;12/09/2007;01:00;12/09/2007;10:20;
008;AER;000;00:00;012100N;1035900E;
008;TOC;310;00:20;001700S;1045200E;
008;INT;330;01:43;095500S;1103000E;
008;INT;350;03:41;225600S;1213000E;
008;INT;350;05:31;322800S;1371800E;
008;INT;370;06:40;343000S;1495600E;
008;TOD;370;08:43;371300S;1712900E;
008;AER;000;09:12;370000S;1744700E;
49
009;LFPG;KJFK;12/09/2007;01:00;12/09/2007;08:19;
009;AER;000;00:00;490036N;0023254E;
009;TOC;340;00:23;484930N;0000048W;
009;INT;360;00:24;485018N;0001500W;
009;INT;370;01:08;480000N;0080000W;
009;INT;360;01:12;480000N;0084500W;
009;INT;350;01:45;480000N;0150000W;
009;INT;370;02:10;470000N;0200000W;
009;INT;380;05:08;443612N;0545300W;
009;INT;390;06:46;420236N;0702530W;
009;TOD;390;06:54;413354N;0713630W;
009;AER;000;07:19;403812N;0734606W;
010;KJFK;LFPG;12/09/2007;00:01;12/09/2007;06:15;
010;AER;000;00:00;403812N;0734606W;
010;TOC;330;00:20;415718N;0715042W;
010;INT;370;00:50;452024N;0674418W;
010;INT;370;01:15;480054N;0635836W;
010;INT;370;02:08;530500N;0540500W;
010;INT;380;02:25;540000N;0500000W;
010;INT;390;03:05;560000N;0400000W;
010;INT;400;04:20;560000N;0200000W;
010;INT;410;05:04;545418N;0084812W;
010;INT;410;05:20;540400N;0044548W;
010;INT;250;05:53;502106N;0003830E;
010;TOD;250;05:55;500136N;0010242E;
010;AER;000;06:14;490036N;0023254E;
011;LFPG;KIAD;12/09/2007;22:40;13/09/2007;06:23;
011;AER;000;00:00;490036N;0023254E;
011;TOC;330;00:20;485054N;0002654W;
011;INT;340;00:26;485424N;0014036W;
011;INT;360;00:55;490024N;0071254W;
011;INT;360;01:18;490312N;0114606W;
011;INT;380;01:34;490000N;0150000W;
011;INT;380;02:01;480000N;0200000W;
011;INT;380;02:52;470000N;0300000W;
011;INT;380;03:42;470000N;0400000W;
011;INT;390;04:42;455018N;0510000W;
011;INT;400;05:12;450154N;0561542W;
011;INT;390;06:42;422130N;0705924W;
011;TOD;390;07:21;400924N;0761248W;
011;AER;000;07:43;385642N;0772724W;
50
012;LFPG;RJAA;12/09/2007;22:25;13/09/2007;09:05;
012;AER;000;00:00;490036N;0023254E;
012;TOC;310;00:20;505830N;0034048E;
012;INT;330;01:40;593512N;0163900E;
012;INT;331;02:51;640642N;0361606E;
012;INT;331;04:01;680854N;0591806E;
012;INT;331;05:12;672548N;0863830E;
012;INT;331;06:25;630006N;1093700E;
012;INT;364;07:33;565430N;1245236E;
012;INT;364;08:45;490500N;1342800E;
012;INT;370;09:53;394454N;1363618E;
012;TOD;370;10:14;372930N;1393542E;
012;AER;000;10:40;354554N;1402312E;
013;RJAA;LFPG;12/09/2007;19:55;13/09/2007;08:44;
013;AER;000;00:00;354554N;1402312E;
013;TOC;250;00:21;373842N;1391406E;
013;INT;315;01:35;465000N;1362000E;
013;INT;315;02:40;532612N;1301624E;
013;INT;315;03:48;590642N;1193624E;
013;INT;315;04:48;625506N;1070000E;
013;INT;348;05:59;650142N;0882112E;
013;INT;348;07:04;642618N;0695748E;
013;INT;348;08:07;623724N;0535930E;
013;INT;348;09:23;600200N;0374500E;
013;INT;360;10:34;580236N;0214324E;
013;INT;370;11:42;533918N;0093542E;
013;TOD;380;12:24;493542N;0045106E;
013;AER;000;12:49;490036N;0023254E;
014;FAJS;YSSY;12/09/2007;16:56;13/09/2007;04:25;
014;AER;000;00:00;260800S;0281400E;
014;TOC;290;00:19;280000S;0300000E;
014;INT;330;00:48;310600S;0321200E;
014;INT;330;01:11;330000S;0350000E;
014;INT;330;01:54;380000S;0400000E;
014;INT;330;02:34;430000S;0450000E;
014;INT;330;03:02;460000S;0500000E;
014;INT;330;03:27;480000S;0550000E;
014;INT;330;04:11;500000S;0650000E;
014;INT;330;04:52;500000S;0750000E;
014;INT;330;05:14;500000S;0800000E;
014;INT;330;05:35;500000S;0850000E;
014;INT;370;06:00;500000S;0904200E;
014;INT;370;06:19;500000S;0950000E;
014;INT;370;07:01;500000S;1050000E;
014;INT;370;07:43;500000S;1150000E;
014;INT;370;08:24;490000S;1250000E;
014;INT;370;09:16;450000S;1350000E;
014;INT;370;09:49;420000S;1400000E;
014;TOD;370;11:04;355400S;1481800E;
51
014;AER;000;11:29;335600S;1511000E;
015;KSFO;LFPG;12/09/2007;22:15;13/09/2007;07:30;
015;AER;000;00:00;373712N;1222230W;
015;TOC;300;00:22;392236N;1195554W;
015;INT;330;00:24;393154N;1193924W;
015;INT;370;01:09;440518N;1121236W;
015;INT;370;01:28;454830N;1083730W;
015;INT;370;02:34;522024N;0964242W;
015;INT;370;03:14;562424N;0900000W;
015;INT;370;04:03;603942N;0800000W;
015;INT;390;05:15;650000N;0600000W;
015;INT;390;06:10;660000N;0400000W;
015;INT;390;07:07;630000N;0200000W;
015;INT;390;08:13;555212N;0042648W;
015;INT;250;08:52;502106N;0003830E;
015;TOD;250;08:56;494724N;0011348E;
015;AER;000;09:15;490036N;0023254E;
016;KORD;ZSPD;12/09/2007;01:00;12/09/2007;15:25;
016;AER;000;00:00;415800N;0875400W;
016;TOC;270;00:19;431900N;0865000W;
016;INT;290;00:33;445200N;0852400W;
016;INT;310;00:49;465600N;0840000W;
016;INT;310;02:29;600000N;0800000W;
016;INT;310;03:46;700000N;0760000W;
016;INT;330;05:05;801000N;0594900W;
016;INT;350;05:31;843400N;0542700W;
016;INT;330;06:19;873300N;0274100E;
016;INT;308;06:41;855100N;0690200E;
016;INT;338;07:29;794900N;0904000E;
016;INT;338;09:23;644500N;1035100E;
016;INT;338;11:13;501800N;1062800E;
016;INT;354;12:08;443800N;1131400E;
016;INT;363;12:30;414400N;1131300E;
016;INT;372;13:13;361400N;1145400E;
016;INT;363;13:34;333900N;1143800E;
016;TOD;363;14:01;313800N;1190200E;
016;AER;000;14:25;310800N;1214800E;
52
017;KORD;VHHH;12/09/2007;01:00;12/09/2007;16:24;
017;AER;000;00:00;415800N;0875400W;
017;TOC;270;00:21;432700N;0863700W;
017;INT;290;00:34;445300N;0852300W;
017;INT;310;01:12;494400N;0822300W;
017;INT;310;03:07;700000N;0760000W;
017;INT;330;05:17;815300N;0574100W;
017;INT;350;05:43;851300N;0483500W;
017;INT;308;06:20;873000N;0320000E;
017;INT;338;07:48;772500N;0964000E;
017;INT;338;09:45;612700N;1041500E;
017;INT;338;10:57;520200N;1052500E;
017;INT;354;12:04;443500N;1131400E;
017;INT;363;12:27;414200N;1131400E;
017;INT;372;13:09;361400N;1145400E;
017;INT;372;14:23;274000N;1133100E;
017;TOD;372;15:03;225300N;1134000E;
017;AER;000;15:24;221800N;1135400E;
018;KORD;ZBAA;12/09/2007;01:00;12/09/2007;14:11;
018;AER;000;00:00;415800N;0875400W;
018;TOC;290;00:18;431800N;0865100W;
018;INT;310;00:37;452400N;0845400W;
018;INT;330;01:11;494100N;0822400W;
018;INT;330;03:01;642400N;0800000W;
018;INT;350;05:04;801100N;0594800W;
018;INT;338;06:20;873100N;0300000E;
018;INT;338;08:07;750100N;1001200E;
018;INT;338;10:02;592600N;1043200E;
018;INT;338;11:13;502000N;1062800E;
018;INT;372;12:10;442700N;1131400E;
018;INT;363;12:30;415000N;1130900E;
018;TOD;363;12:49;402300N;1152900E;
018;AER;000;13:11;400500N;1163500E;
019;LFPG;KSFO;12/09/2007;21:20;13/09/2007;08:58;
019;AER;000;00:00;490036N;0023254E;
019;TOC;310;00:34;491542N;0021642W;
019;INT;320;01:37;530000N;0120000W;
019;INT;340;03:11;580000N;0300000W;
019;INT;340;04:18;634136N;0434118W;
019;INT;360;05:22;675900N;0604548W;
019;INT;360;06:23;663000N;0800000W;
019;INT;360;07:39;613000N;1000000W;
019;INT;380;08:39;563848N;1110718W;
019;INT;380;09:49;490000N;1163154W;
019;INT;390;11:07;400554N;1221412W;
019;TOD;390;11:12;393642N;1224330W;
019;AER;000;11:38;373712N;1222230W;
53
020;YSSY;FAJS;12/09/2007;00:15;12/09/2007;14:00;
020;AER;000;00:00;335600S;1511000E;
020;TOC;300;00:18;350600S;1491200E;
020;INT;300;00:57;374200S;1444800E;
020;INT;300;01:44;420000S;1400000E;
020;INT;310;02:00;434200S;1381800E;
020;INT;310;02:13;450000S;1370000E;
020;INT;310;02:31;470000S;1350000E;
020;INT;310;03:14;520000S;1300000E;
020;INT;310;03:51;560000S;1250000E;
020;INT;310;04:17;580000S;1200000E;
020;INT;310;04:42;600000S;1150000E;
020;INT;350;04:55;605400S;1115400E;
020;INT;350;05:24;630000S;1050000E;
020;INT;350;05:41;640000S;1000000E;
020;INT;350;05:59;650000S;0950000E;
020;INT;350;06:15;660000S;0900000E;
020;INT;350;06:30;660000S;0850000E;
020;INT;350;06:47;650000S;0800000E;
020;INT;350;07:25;630000S;0700000E;
020;INT;350;08:10;600000S;0600000E;
020;INT;370;08:42;571800S;0544200E;
020;INT;370;09:10;550000S;0500000E;
020;INT;370;10:40;450000S;0430000E;
020;INT;370;12:10;350000S;0350000E;
020;INT;390;12:30;314800S;0331800E;
020;INT;390;12:34;311200S;0330000E;
020;INT;350;12:45;302400S;0321800E;
020;TOD;350;13:21;274800S;0294800E;
020;AER;000;13:45;260800S;0281400E;
021;OMDB;KIAH;12/09/2007;01:00;12/09/2007;16:36;
021;AER;000;00:00;251500N;0552100E;
021;TOC;300;00:17;264300N;0554300E;
021;INT;300;01:16;323300N;0512400E;
021;INT;320;02:08;382000N;0465500E;
021;INT;320;03:17;434100N;0383600E;
021;INT;320;04:20;485800N;0285100E;
021;INT;320;05:22;533100N;0184600E;
021;INT;320;06:21;580500N;0075400E;
021;INT;330;07:39;640000N;0100000W;
021;INT;330;08:45;660000N;0300000W;
021;INT;360;09:48;650000N;0500000W;
021;INT;360;10:39;620000N;0630000W;
021;INT;360;11:45;560000N;0750000W;
021;INT;360;12:52;480000N;0832600W;
021;INT;380;13:40;385100N;0902800W;
021;TOD;380;15:09;312400N;0932700W;
021;AER;000;15:36;295800N;0952000W;
54
022;YSSY;FAJS;12/09/2007;00:29;12/09/2007;14:20;
022;AER;000;00:00;335600S;1511000E;
022;TOC;300;00:23;352400S;1483600E;
022;INT;300;00:57;374200S;1444800E;
022;INT;300;01:41;420000S;1400000E;
022;INT;310;02:11;470000S;1350000E;
022;INT;310;02:24;480600S;1335400E;
022;INT;310;03:08;520000S;1300000E;
022;INT;310;03:41;550000S;1250000E;
022;INT;310;04:37;590000S;1150000E;
022;INT;310;05:20;610000S;1050000E;
022;INT;350;05:31;611800S;1021200E;
022;INT;350;05:59;620000S;0950000E;
022;INT;350;06:36;620000S;0850000E;
022;INT;370;07:01;604800S;0784800E;
022;INT;370;07:16;600000S;0750000E;
022;INT;370;08:05;570000S;0650000E;
022;INT;370;09:15;510000S;0550000E;
022;INT;370;09:58;470000S;0500000E;
022;INT;370;10:42;430000S;0450000E;
022;INT;390;11:31;380000S;0400000E;
022;INT;390;12:27;330000S;0350000E;
022;INT;390;13:06;300000S;0310000E;
022;TOD;390;13:23;283000S;0295400E;
022;AER;000;13:51;260800S;0281400E;
023;WSSS;KEWR;12/09/2007;01:00;12/09/2007;18:21;
023;AER;000;00:00;012100N;1035900E;
023;TOC;300;00:26;025670N;1051920E;
023;INT;320;01:22;081290N;1101310E;
023;INT;340;01:52;112830N;1123530E;
023;INT;350;03:45;230000N;1235800E;
023;INT;350;05:34;340710N;1392990E;
023;INT;340;07:57;481710N;1604050E;
023;INT;340;09:58;572000N;1734100W;
023;INT;390;11:23;610900N;1501240W;
023;INT;410;13:49;574520N;1100000W;
023;INT;410;15:09;510430N;0934570W;
023;TOD;410;16:32;433950N;0793790W;
023;AER;000;17:21;404160N;0741010W;
55

EURADOS Report 2012-03

Transcription

Similar documents

radiactividad natural

RadPro International GmbH i

Radiation Effects

HSS DoseMonitor:

Radiation Therapy

Dockside Radiation Monitoring System

Please use one form per client, send the filled booking form back to

10 Pearls: Radiation protection of staff in fluoroscopy

Presentation M. McEwen

Radiation Safety Issues for Radiologic Technologists Radiation